Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmondelez India Foods Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Mumbai- Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, 8 Tower-3 (Wing C), One 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar International Cente Bhavan, Maharshi (Formerly Indiabulls Finance Karve Road, Mumbai- Centre) Parel, Mumbai- 400020 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc0460H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakker & Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Pcit, Mumbai-8 (‘The Ld. Pcit’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

…not an appeal proceedings, but correction mechanism in the nature of a second look at the proposed assessment order by high functionaries of revenue (ii) Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2014] 50 taxmann.com 300/[2015] 228 Taxman 25/[2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bom.). In the present case, this Tribunal is under the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Hence, we do not have any authority whatsoever to deviate from the exposition of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that the proceedings at DRP is not an appeal proceedings, but a correcting mechanism. Furthermore, the ratio from the Hon'ble Bombay…

NETFLIX ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly\nallowed

…atutory duty.\n130. We cannot condone such departures from the law.\nChapter X is not an invitation to economic imagination; it is a\ndiscipline founded upon objective comparability. As the\nSupreme Court observed in Vodafone India Services (P.)\nLtd. v. UOI (368 ITR 1, SC), transfer pricing adjustments\ncannot proceed on hypothetical or notional income. Similarly,\nin Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (381 ITR 117, Del. HC), it\nwas held that recharacterisation of a transaction is\nimpermissible unless the arrangement is shown to be a sham\nor colourable device. Neither circumstance exists here. The\nagreements be…

BIRLA CARBON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

…as expounded that proceedings before the DRP is not an appeal proceedings, but correction mechanism in the nature of a second look at the proposed assessment order by high functionaries of revenue (ii)Vodafone India Services Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India (2014) 368 ITR 1(Bom.). In the present case, this Tribunal is under the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Hence, we do not have any authority whatsoever to deviate from the exposition of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that the proceedings at DRP is not an appeal proceedings, but a correcting mechanism. Furthermore, the ratio from the Hon'ble Bombay…

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. Cit, 501, 5Th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration Is Whether The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, Can Be Subjected To Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act. For Deciding This Issue, Few Necessary Facts Are Required To Be Considered. The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Providing Information Technology (It)/Information Technology Enabled Service (Ites) To Its Group Companies As Well As Consulting Services To Its Clients. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. CIT, 501, 5th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent by : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee, assailing the order dated 20.03.2025, passed u/s. 263 of Inco…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CITY CENTRE MALL NASHIK PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

…income during the relevant period. Thus, capital account transaction not falling within the statutory explanation cannot be brought to tax.” 10. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bom.), has held that the receipt of share capital including premium was on capital account and gave rise to net income. The amendments incorporated in the definition of income u/s 2(24)(xvi) and 56(2)(viib) of the Act were the amendments which were to apply from 01/04/2013 i.e., AY 2013-14. The amendment to Section 68 by incorporation of the first…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CITY CENTER MALL NASHIK PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

…income during the relevant period. Thus, capital account transaction not falling within the statutory explanation cannot be brought to tax.” 10. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bom.), has held that the receipt of share capital including premium was on capital account and gave rise to net income. The amendments incorporated in the definition of income u/s 2(24)(xvi) and 56(2)(viib) of the Act were the amendments which were to apply from 01/04/2013 i.e., AY 2013-14. The amendment to Section 68 by incorporation of the first…

JCIT(OSD) I/C. OF DCIT -1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ZT SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as per our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1729/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), I/C. Dcit-1(3)(1), Mumbai (M.H.)

…of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the adjustment made by the TPO by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (368 ITR 1) and Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd (369 ITR 516) wherein it has been held that the provision of Chapter X of the Act would apply only if the income is chargeable to tax under the Act ignoring the fact that the TPO had not re-characterized the shortfall in the receipt of share premium as income? 2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case an…

AVINASH S SADAMATE ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. RUCHI RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle – 3(3)(1), Mumbai Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.706, Room No. 522, Aayakarbhavan, Vs Tulsiani Chambers, Free Press Journal M K Road, Churchgate, Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400021. [Pan: Aaecr1591A] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

…s transaction is capital investment and not an income within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act. For this proposition, he relied on the following case law: 1. Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [2015] 228 Taxman 25/[2014] 50 taxmann.com 300/368 ITR 1 (Bombay) 2. CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. [2005] 142 Taxman 713/273 ITR 1 (SC) 3. CIT v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. [1969] 73 ITR 745 (SC) 4. Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row CIT, [1966] 61 ITR 428 (SC). 5 Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. 9.1 With regard to Section 14A disallowance, he submitted that assessee has not claimed any…

DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ERA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

…as the capital received and not chargeable to tax. For\nthese, the assessee has relied on CBDT instruction No. 02 of 2015 dated 29\nJanuary 2015 and the decision Bombay High Court in case of Vodafone\nServices Private Limited Versus Union of India reported in 368 ITR 1\n(Bombay). The assessee also relied on several other cases. It was also\ncontended by assessee that they were not required to prove the 'source of\nthe source' of the amount received for convertible means CCD and equity\nshares as the provisions of amended section of 68 were effective from 1 April\n2013. To support such contention the assessee reli…

M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM\nAND\nSHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM\nITA No. 4440/Mum/2024\n(Assessment Year: 2020-21)\nM/s. Essar Shipping Ltd.\n5th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Rao\nKhadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai\n400034.\nVs.\nDeputy Commissioner of Income\nTax, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai\nPAN/GIR No. AACCE3707D\n(Appellant)\nAssessee by\nRespondent by\n: Shri. Piyush Chaturvedi\n: Shri. Kiran Unavekar, SR. DR.\nDate of Hearing\nDate of Pronouncement\n: 19.02.2025\n: 16.05.2025\nORDER\nPer Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:\nThis appeal has been fil…

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S LOTUS LOGISTICS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

…passed by the ITSC which had decided its view based on the peculiar facts and material with therm. Further, the said decision has been impliedly overruled by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in the case of Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bom.). The said view of the decision being overruled was again accepted by the Hon'ble Bombay HC in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd v. ITO [2016] 68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.). Accordingly, the decision relied upon by the AO in impugned order does not support the case of the AO. 27 3697/Mum/2019 & Others Lotus Logistic & Developers Pvt L…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. DEVELOPERS AND REALTORS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

…passed by the ITSC which had decided its view based on the peculiar facts and material with therm. Further, the said decision has been impliedly overruled by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in the case of Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bom.). The said view of the decision being overruled was again accepted by the Hon'ble Bombay HC in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd v. ITO [2016] 68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.). Accordingly, the decision relied upon by the AO in impugned order does not support the case of the AO. 27 3697/Mum/2019 & Others Lotus Logistic & Developers Pvt L…

DCIT - CC -7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

…passed by the ITSC which had decided its view based on the peculiar facts and material with therm. Further, the said decision has been impliedly overruled by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in the case of Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bom.). The said view of the decision being overruled was again accepted by the Hon'ble Bombay HC in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd v. ITO [2016] 68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.). Accordingly, the decision relied upon by the AO in impugned order does not support the case of the AO. 27 3697/Mum/2019 & Others Lotus Logistic & Developers Pvt L…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S WELSPUN GLOBAL BRANDS LTD , MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A. No. 2184/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) DCIT, CC-3(3), M/s Welspun Global Brands Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19th Floor, B-9, Trade World, Senapati Bapat Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. PAN: AAACW5582G Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Appellant /Assessee by Shri Ajay Nagpal, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This…