PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

57,180/- of income as per return of income filed on 30th August, 2009. The learned Assessing Officer has made an adjustment of 02. ₹3,15,47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

57,180/- of income as per return of income filed on 30th August, 2009. The learned Assessing Officer has made an adjustment of 02. ₹3,15,47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing provision to notional transaction, which is beyond TPO's jurisdiction as prescribed under section 92CA. Hence, the said proposal is bad in law, void-ab-initio and non-est in the eyes of law. Page No. 18 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited  In support of above contention, the assessee wishes

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

Section 115JB of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the Transfer Pricing Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Addition of INR.10,45,07,474/- made

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

Section 115JB of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the Transfer Pricing Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Addition of INR.10,45,07,474/- made

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

57,91,292 6. The assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP against the said draft order which consists of transfer pricing and non- transfer pricing adjustment / additions/disallowances. The ld. DRP has disposed off the objections, vide directions dated 23 March 2021 wherein certain relief was granted/ enhancement were made and certain adjustments were confirmed

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

57, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2012-13 in relation to non- Parishi Diamonds 2 maintenance of record maintenance of records /documents /information required under s /documents /information required under Chapter of Transfer Pricing Provisions

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

57,53,56,445/- as "royalty' within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.?" 9. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 93,20,819/-made under section 14A of the Act, despite the fact that the Assessing

EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

57,908/- only at ₹83,05,750/- and proposed an adjustment of ₹9,01,52,158/-. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer also held that the above payments resulting into substantial beneficial ownership in the hand of the respondent becomes deemed dividend under Section

EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

57,908/- only at ₹83,05,750/- and proposed an adjustment of ₹9,01,52,158/-. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer also held that the above payments resulting into substantial beneficial ownership in the hand of the respondent becomes deemed dividend under Section

DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TRANSOCEAN DRILLING SERVICES (INDIA) PLT, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 92F(ii) that no unrelated party in uncontrolled circumstances would have passed on such huge contract amount exceeding Rs.622.57 Crores without charging or retaining any commission." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, the name lending and front end entity activities done

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 92C of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in restricting the rate of interest on loans given to Associated Enterprises @ LIBOR + 2% instead of 17.22% proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing

ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

transfer pricing study is highly facts-based and it differs from case to case and that all the factors in Rule M/s Essar Shipping Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 10B have to be considered for every case and every year independently and that a rate decided in a different case for different set of facts and for different year cannot

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

pricing adjustment made in respect of the Financial\nGuarantee. Both the Assessee and Revenue have challenged the\naforesaid order of the Learned CIT(A).\n17.\nWe have heard both the sides on the issue under consideration and\nhave perused the material on record.\n1\nThe arm's length guarantee commission is held to be 0.50% plus 0.20% (to cover\nthe