“substance over form”

BHARATKUMAR GADODIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

assistance to the appellant. In view of the above, it is prudent to apply the 'Theory of Human Probabilities' & concepts of 'substance over form' and 'lifting corporate veil' aided with various case laws mentioned above, I treat the transactions made by the assessee through penny stocks as sham transactions

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

such return. The absence of mandatory\nincome strongly indicated that the transaction was not\nconducted at arm's length.\n(x) Substance Over Form\nThough styled as an investment in preference shares, the\ntransaction effectively placed funds at the disposal of the AE\nfor an indefinite period, without commercial safeguards

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Tata Sons Ltd. @ 0.25% of the Annual Net Income of\neach subsidiary.\n(iii) The BEPS Action Plan 8 to 10 emphasizes substance over form, economic\nreality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating a\ntransaction from transfer pricing angle which has been ignored

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

assessee to Tato Sons Ltd. @ 0.25% of the Annual Net Income of each subsidiary. (iii) The BEPS Action Plan 8 to 10 emphasizes substance over form, есопоміс reality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating a transaction from transfer pricing angle which has been ignored

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

assessee to Tata Sons Ltd. @ 0.25% of the Annual Net Income of each subsidiary. (iii) The BEPS Action Plan 8 to 10 emphasizes substance over form, economic reality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating a transaction from transfer pricing angle which has been ignored ... Court Order (09.05.2003) needs to be ignored giving credence to Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. AY 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 substance over form, economic reality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating the transaction from transfer pricing angle. (iii) The brand royalty charged Rs.2500.75

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

assessee had complete control over sale of agent, bore commercial risk on behalf of the agent thereby not appreciating the principle of substance over form? 2.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in holding that the assessee