ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

TDS of Foreign Parties 4 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. 8. Denial of claim of deduction in 1,74,35,513 employee's ESIC contribution & Labour welfare fund Sub-total (B) 23,12,42,582 Total (A+B) 102,00,93,469 4. Apart from above, assessee has also raised the following additional grounds, which are as under

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

144C(13) in 2 I.T.A. No. 2877/Mum/2014 Strides Shasun Limited pursuance of the direction given by Ld. DRP on 30.12.2013 for AY 2009-10. 2. In various grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged various transfer pricing adjustment as well as various corporate grounds which are as under:- Transfer Pricing Grounds 1. Imputing interest on delayed receipt from debtors

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

CADMATIC OY,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions 29/11/2021, issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (“learned DRP”), for the assessment year 2018- 19. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– Cadmatic OY ITA no.540/Mum./2023 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

TDS is deducted on the interest paid and interest is debited to P&L account\n• the bond holders have no right to participate in management of the bank\nThe appellant had submitted that the bonds of Rs. 1,680 Crores outstanding\nas on 31.03.2016 have been redeemed as under:\nPerpetual Bonds – IPDI Series I\n400.00\n24-07-2017\nPerpetual

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1,33,26,605 claimed in the return of income thereby leading to short grant of TDS of INR 30,00,000: 6. Interest under section 234A of the Act erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to INR 32,431 which is not as per law. 7. Interest under section 2348 of the Act Edenred

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1,33,26,605 claimed in the return of income thereby leading to short grant of TDS of INR 30,00,000: 6. Interest under section 234A of the Act erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to INR 32,431 which is not as per law. 7. Interest under section 2348 of the Act Edenred

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1,33,26,605 claimed in the return of income thereby leading to short grant of TDS of INR 30,00,000: 6. Interest under section 234A of the Act erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to INR 32,431 which is not as per law. 7. Interest under section 2348 of the Act Edenred

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1,33,26,605 claimed in the return of income thereby leading to short grant of TDS of INR 30,00,000: 6. Interest under section 234A of the Act erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to INR 32,431 which is not as per law. 7. Interest under section 2348 of the Act Edenred

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

TDS from payments to Kone, copies of which were\nsubmitted by the Appellant to the DRP and the AO.\n2.2.2. The learned AO erred on facts and in law in disallowing the\npayment made to Kone without giving any opportunity to the Appellant to\nexplain the position.\n2.3. Further, the learned AO erred on facts and in law in disallowing

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

TDS are not applicable; thirdly, when income has been determined under PSM, inter- company transactions are eliminated and in such a methodology the combined net profit is first worked out and then divided as per the relevant functions and role of each entity. Last but not the least, the channel companies have been separately assessed and they have discharged their

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the AY 2018-19. 2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of services of medical and radiotherapy equipment in India. The assessee also Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd. provides software development services to its Associated Enterprises (AE). During the year

GALATEA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Daym/S. Galatea Ltd. Dcit (International Taxation) P.O. 1156, Industrial Vs. Range 2(3)(2) Area, Dalton, Israel Mumbai Pan - Aadcg8396D Appellant Respondent

144C of the Act at an income of `74,24,17,360/- as against returned income of ` Nil!-. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in the affirming the draft assessment order by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order, without judiciously considering the entire material and the submissions/ objections filed by the appellant. 2. That

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

TDS) (o) Ground No. 11 : Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of appeal in relation to the following issues: (a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of INR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges under Section

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAX) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(13) of the Act, as against the returned\nincome of Rs. 3,26,88,17,417;\nGround of Appeal Nos. 2 to 5: Invalidity of impugned proceedings under\nsection 147 of the Act\n2. failed to appreciate that the impugned proceedings have been initiated beyond the\ntime limit prescribed under provisions of section 149 of the Act and thereby

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

144C(3) of & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 the Act. 12.2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5764/Mum/2017: GROUND 1: TREATING THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE GIVEN AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION UNDER SECTION 92B OF THE ACT. 1 On the facts and the circumstances of the case

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

144C(3) of & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 the Act. 12.2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5764/Mum/2017: GROUND 1: TREATING THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE GIVEN AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION UNDER SECTION 92B OF THE ACT. 1 On the facts and the circumstances of the case