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.

153 of the Act would also be barred by limitation. For the sake of convenience, the original ground No.2 raised by the assessee is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Re: Validity of the Order: 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) dated 1 November 2019 is barred

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

TDS considered short by Rs. 45,06,609/- 16. Credit for tax paid on self-assessment not granted. 3. The assessee vide letter dated 9th June 2022 has raised additional grounds that the impugned transfer pricing order dated 30th January 2013 passed u/s 92CA(3) is barred by limitation and hence bad in law. Further in another petition dated 20th

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. (ASOL) AS A SUCCESSOR TO ACCENTURE SERIVCES PVT LTD (ASPL),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 14 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

153 of the Act i.e. o. 31.10.2018, hence barred by limitation. 18. However, by virtue of this appeal the assessee has also raised corporate grounds No.21, 22 & 23 challenging additions under section 36(1)(va) and non granting of credit of taxes deducted at source and levying of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act, which are determined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

153(5) of the Act to the date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. documentary proof vis-à-vis service

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

153(5) of the Act to the date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. documentary proof vis-à-vis service

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

153(5) of the Act to the date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. documentary proof vis-à-vis service

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

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

153 of the Act that assessment order was required to be passed within a period of 21 months from the end of assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 and a further period of 12 months is to be added in case reference is made under section 92CA of the Act to the Ld. TPO, meaning thereby the period

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

153 of the Act that assessment order was required to be passed within a period of 21 months from the end of assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 and a further period of 12 months is to be added in case reference is made under section 92CA of the Act to the Ld. TPO, meaning thereby the period

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

153 of the Act that assessment order was required to be passed within a period of 21 months from the end of assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 and a further period of 12 months is to be added in case reference is made under section 92CA of the Act to the Ld. TPO, meaning thereby the period

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

153 of the Act that assessment order was required to be passed within a period of 21 months from the end of assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 and a further period of 12 months is to be added in case reference is made under section 92CA of the Act to the Ld. TPO, meaning thereby the period

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short

SAFE AND SURE MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS), WARD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for partly allowed for 7

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS is confirmed. Ground no 1 to 4 is dismissed. dismissed.” 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned DR as well as the written submissions of the assessee. The assessee DR as well as the written submissions