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 2

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

B C & Associates UP, Chartered Accountants, attended and submitted the details called for, which are placed on record, (he case was heard and discussed with him 4. Barclays Bank PLC is a financial services group, based in the United Kingdom, engaged primarily in banking, investment banking and investment management, It is a leading provider of coordinated global services to multi

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

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

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

TDS credit. The assessee is IT enabled and BPO service provider and has shown income of Rs.86,36,70,289/- from the said business during the year. Further, the assessee has shown interest income of Rs.15,11,64,039/- as „income from other sources‟. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s.143(2

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

TDS out of abundant caution on such payment and the appellant has claimed refund of the same. Therefore, the Ld. A.O./ DRP is not justified in making addition of Rs.3,64,86,608/- in the hands of the appellant and the same may be deleted. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or rescind

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

TDS of Rs. 1,24,82,097/- as against Rs. 1,25,90,372/- claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. 6. Ground 6: Interest charged under section 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act The Id. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under

ITO (IT) TDS-2, MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS-2 Room No. 113, Scindia House, 1st Floor, Ballard Estate, ……………. Appellant N.M. Road, Mumbai-400038 v/s M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Respondent Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M ITA no.8707/Mum./2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Appellant Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M v/s Additional Commissioner

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS-2 Room No. 113, Scindia House, 1st Floor, Ballard Estate, ……………. Appellant N.M. Road, Mumbai-400038 v/s M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Respondent Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M ITA no.8707/Mum./2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Appellant Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M v/s Additional Commissioner

SERVICOS DE PETROLEO CONSTELLATION SA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt Renu Jauhri, Am Servicos De Petroleo Constellation Sa Dcit(International Taxation), India Project Office: Circle-4(2)(1) Unit No. 1803 To 1808, 18Th Floor, Mumbai B-Wing, Business Park, Vs. Veer Savarkar Road, Part Site, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079

144C(1) of the Act, proposing the impugned amount @ 10% to be added to the income as per section 44BB of the Act on the GST/service tax component, aggregating to Rs.27.28 crores and determined the total income at Rs.25,15,71,604/-. 5. The assessee filed its objection before the Hon’ble DRP which vide order dated 29.09.2023, disposed

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not allowable. 8.7. The assessee has deducted TDS as per provisions of section 194C. Section 194C covers Broadcasting and Telecasting work under the works contract and thus mentions that TDS to be deducted on such payments as per provisions of this section. The assessee does not give his content to a third

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

144C(13) of the Act for A.Y 2006-07 the interest amount was reduced to Rs.8,58,80,712/-. Subsequently, the A.O in rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act dated 21/04/2011 allowed interest of Rs.13,03,17,397/-. Subsequent to direction of the DRP, the AO again modified the interest amount vide order passed u/s. 154 dated 15/04/2013

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest\nof revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct in allowing the\ninterest on perpetual debt instruments without examining and verifying the\nallowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of ld. representatives we\nhave gone through the copies of documents and detailed submission made\nbefore

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

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 SA A.Y. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 erred in levying interest under section

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

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 SA A.Y. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 erred in levying interest under section

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

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 SA A.Y. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 erred in levying interest under section

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

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 SA A.Y. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 erred in levying interest under section

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest\nof revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct in allowing the\ninterest on perpetual debt instruments without examining and verifying the\nallowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of ld. representatives we\nhave gone through the copies of documents and detailed submission made\nbefore

SEADRILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the\nAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Ward-4(2)(1),\nMumbai [for short 'the AO] dated 23.10.2023 for the AY 2021-22. The assessee\nraised various grounds contending the following issues:\n(i) GST collected by the assessee should not form part of \"amount\"\nspecified in section

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest\nof revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct in allowing the\ninterest on perpetual debt instruments without examining and verifying the\nallowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of ld. representatives we\nhave gone through the copies of documents and detailed submission made\nbefore

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest\nof revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct in allowing the\ninterest on perpetual debt instruments without examining and verifying the\nallowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of ld. representatives we\nhave gone through the copies of documents and detailed submission made\nbefore