SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

92C(4), it constitutes a bar against lowering income of the non-resident AE, as a result of lowering the deduction in the hands of the Indian AE, rather than as enabling a higher deduction in the hands of the Indian AE as a result of increasing non-resident AE's income. ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 12 Therefore

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

92C(4), it constitutes a bar against lowering income of the non-resident AE, as a result of lowering the deduction in the hands of the Indian AE, rather than as enabling a higher deduction in the hands of the Indian AE as a result of increasing non-resident AE's income. ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 12 Therefore

SHELL ENERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Office No.2008, Westgage Vs Ahmedabad. Block-D, Makarba, Sg Highway Ahmedabad 380051. Pan : Aaach 9143 C Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs (Formerly Known As M/S.Hqzira Lng P.Ltd.) Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaach 9143 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate, Shri Vishal Kalra & Ss Tomar, Ars. Revenue By : Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathese Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.435 & 558/Ahd/2022

section 92C(2) of the Act. 6. Having stated so, the ld.counsel for the assessee began by making pleadings on ground no.5(iv) raised before us. Arguments were made at length and reference was made to the several voluminous documents placed in paper-book before us, running to four volumes, filed on behalf of the assessee. 7. The primary contention

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHELL ENERGY INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. HAZIRA LNG. PVT. LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Office No.2008, Westgage Vs Ahmedabad. Block-D, Makarba, Sg Highway Ahmedabad 380051. Pan : Aaach 9143 C Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs (Formerly Known As M/S.Hqzira Lng P.Ltd.) Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaach 9143 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate, Shri Vishal Kalra & Ss Tomar, Ars. Revenue By : Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathese Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.435 & 558/Ahd/2022

section 92C(2) of the Act. 6. Having stated so, the ld.counsel for the assessee began by making pleadings on ground no.5(iv) raised before us. Arguments were made at length and reference was made to the several voluminous documents placed in paper-book before us, running to four volumes, filed on behalf of the assessee. 7. The primary contention

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS liable, but the AO found that despite being responsible for deducting tax on the total amount, the Assessee failed to do so. The Assessee did not offer any satisfactory explanation for this non-compliance. Accordingly, Ld. Assessing Officer held that given the clear requirements under Sections 194J and 194C of the Act, and the Assessee’s inability to demonstrate

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS liable, but the AO found that despite being responsible for deducting tax on the total amount, the Assessee failed to do so. The Assessee did not offer any satisfactory explanation for this non-compliance. Accordingly, Ld. Assessing Officer held that given the clear requirements under Sections 194J and 194C of the Act, and the Assessee’s inability to demonstrate

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

92C of the Act. In this regard we note that admittedly there was no benefit accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration but considering the interrelated activities carried out by the assessee along with associate enterprises, in our considered view it is not necessary that the benefit will arise in the year in which such loans and advances

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

92C of the Act. In this regard we note that admittedly there was no benefit accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration but considering the interrelated activities carried out by the assessee along with associate enterprises, in our considered view it is not necessary that the benefit will arise in the year in which such loans and advances

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

92C of the Act. In this regard we note that admittedly there was no benefit accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration but considering the interrelated activities carried out by the assessee along with associate enterprises, in our considered view it is not necessary that the benefit will arise in the year in which such loans and advances

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

92C of the Act. In this regard we note that admittedly there was no benefit accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration but considering the interrelated activities carried out by the assessee along with associate enterprises, in our considered view it is not necessary that the benefit will arise in the year in which such loans and advances

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

92C of the Act. In this regard we note that admittedly there was no benefit accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration but considering the interrelated activities carried out by the assessee along with associate enterprises, in our considered view it is not necessary that the benefit will arise in the year in which such loans and advances

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

92C of the Act. In this regard we note that admittedly there was no benefit accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration but considering the interrelated activities carried out by the assessee along with associate enterprises, in our considered view it is not necessary that the benefit will arise in the year in which such loans and advances

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDIT.CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. That the DRP has erred in directing the NFAC/AO/TPO to consider and verify the contentions of the appellant thereby violating the mandatory provisions of section 144C(8) of the Act. Thus, the Final Assessment order and DRP directions deserve to be set aside and quashed. 3. That the learned AO has erred in not incorporating the directions issued

ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

92C(2) of the Act and thus the Ld. TPO earned in disregarding the transfer pricing benchmarking analysis earned out by the Appellant in relation to the international transaction of the provision of software development services to its Associated Enterprises (AES) The Appellant prays that the Ld. TPO be directed to accept the transfer pricing benchmarking analysis conducted

TOSHIBA TECHNICAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. THE ADIT.,(INTL.TAXN.)-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2015-16 Toshiba Technical Services Vs. Acit, International International Corporation Taxation-2 (India Project Office) Ahmedabad. B-/12 Vijay Wadi Niwas Chs Ltd. Lokmanya Tilak Road Mulund East, Mumbai Pan : Aabct 9577 D

92C(2) of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules,1962 ("Rules"). 2.2 Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld TPO/ DRP/ AO erred in disregarding the detailed arguments/ submissions put forth by the Appellant during the course of the DRP/ assessment proceedings while passing its direction under section 144C

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

92C of the Act cannot be sustained: i) Frigoglass India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 68 taxmann.com 370 (Del. Tri.) upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide ITA No. 123/2017. SLP filed by the Revenue authorities has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (civil) No. 41702/2017 ii) CIT vs. Lever India Exports

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

92C of the Act cannot be sustained: i) Frigoglass India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 68 taxmann.com 370 (Del. Tri.) upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide ITA No. 123/2017. SLP filed by the Revenue authorities has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (civil) No. 41702/2017 ii) CIT vs. Lever India Exports

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

92C of the Act cannot be sustained: i) Frigoglass India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 68 taxmann.com 370 (Del. Tri.) upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide ITA No. 123/2017. SLP filed by the Revenue authorities has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (civil) No. 41702/2017 ii) CIT vs. Lever India Exports