PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(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

method. However, for the purposes of comparing of Profit Level Indicator (PLI), assessee has chosen itself i.e. an Indian entity as tested party. However, the comparables were chosen pertaining to Asia Pacific Region. Therefore, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the transfer pricing study report of the assessee as no relevant data were available. The assessee was asked to provide

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

method. However, for the purposes of comparing of Profit Level Indicator (PLI), assessee has chosen itself i.e. an Indian entity as tested party. However, the comparables were chosen pertaining to Asia Pacific Region. Therefore, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the transfer pricing study report of the assessee as no relevant data were available. The assessee was asked to provide

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

method. However, for the purposes of comparing of Profit Level Indicator (PLI), assessee has chosen itself i.e. an Indian entity as tested party. However, the comparables were chosen pertaining to Asia Pacific Region. Therefore, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the transfer pricing study report of the assessee as no relevant data were available. The assessee was asked to provide

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

TP adjustment of Rs. 3,42,83,120/ 3,42,83,120/- as Corporate Guarantee Commission taking as Corporate Guarantee Commission taking calculated @ 1.40%. Without Prejudice the Learned calculated @ 1.40%. Without Prejudice the Learned calculated @ 1.40%. Without Prejudice the Learned FAO/TPO FAO/TPO FAO/TPO ought ought ought to to to have have have restricted restricted restricted the Guarantee the the Guarantee

OMNIACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

method as adopted by the assessee was appropriate methodology and therefore, no TP adjustment would be warranted on these transactions. By deleting the same, we allow ground no.1 of the appeal.” (Emphasis Supplied) 11. As noted by the DRP, the facts and circumstances in which transfer pricing

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TP) Adjustments\n-Without prejudice grounds, on merits of the purported ALP adjustments\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned\nTransfer Pricing Officer (\"Ld. TPO\") erred in making an arm's length price\nadjustment on the sale price of the electricity produced by the eligible unit [i.e.\nthe unit

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

TP Adjustment 36,38,25,151 Total Disallowances 659,75,09,200 Taxable income under the head business or profession 474,01,91,199 Income from Other Sources (as per revised computation) Interest on fixed deposit 4,19,03,514 4,19,03,514 Total income 478,20,94,713/- Total income (as per Normal Provisions

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

price method adopted by the assessee is most appropriate method is correct. The method mentioned by ld AO in TP order is Cost plus method, there is no finding of dl CIT (A) that how now the most appropriate method is RPM. 017. We are also not in agreement with the methodology adopted by the learned transfer

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

price method adopted by the assessee is most appropriate method is correct. The method mentioned by ld AO in TP order is Cost plus method, there is no finding of dl CIT (A) that how now the most appropriate method is RPM. 017. We are also not in agreement with the methodology adopted by the learned transfer