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

43A, in the case of an assessee 99[, being a non-resident,] engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production1 of, mineral oils1, a sum equal to ten per cent of the aggregate of the amounts

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 3(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

43A of the Act.\nf. Having once held that of the judgment of Knight Frank (India) (P.) Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay) would not apply to the instant case in view of amended clause 145A(a)(ii) of the Act, there is nothing that stops the Ld. AO from taking the sums received/deemed received in toto (Without any splitting

UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunilever Industries Pvt Vs. Acit, Range – 1(3)(1) Ltd., Room No 504, 5 Floor, Unilever House, Bd Aayakar Bhavan, Sawant Marg, Chakala, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai -400099. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0791P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Mr.Hiten Chande.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Jayant Jhaveri.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) & U/Sec144C(13) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 26.02.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. General: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) -4(2)(2) ("Tpo") Subsequent To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs. 152,67,16,425 As Against Returned Income Of Rs. 116,80,08,280 Computed By The Appellant. 2. Parti-Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Transfer Pricing ('Tp') Adjustment On Account Of Benchmarking & Allocation Of Royalty In Respect Of Provision Of Scientific & Technical Services ('Contract R&D')

TDS deducted. In response the assessee has filed a letter on 06.12.2019 referred at 8.2 of the order. Finally the AO has dealt on the provisions of the Act, judicial decisions, ESOP Scheme, and came to conclusion that the ESOP expenses cannot be allowed and the DRP has also rejected the objections of the assessee on this disputed issue

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum of Rs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context, the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum of Rs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context, the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum of Rs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context, the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum of Rs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context, the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum of Rs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context, the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum of Rs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context, the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

43A....”.\nSince Section 44B overrides the provisions of Section 29 of the\nAct, therefore in our opinion Section 145A is not applicable for\ncomputing deemed income under Section 44B.\n27.\nThus, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court will not\nbe applicable in this case same was not rendered in the context\nof Section

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT) TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

43A....' Since Section 44B overrides the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, therefore in our opinion Section 145A is not applicable for computing deemed income under Section 44B. 27. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court will not be applicable in this case same was not rendered in the context of Section

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2) , MUMBAI

TDS provisions and CBDT\nhas clarified through various circulars that if GST services are\nindicated separately in the invoice then no tax would be\ndeducted at GST components. By way of illustration following\ncirculars have been referred to before us under various\nSections:-\nSr.No.\nCircular No.\nRelevant Section\n1.\nCircular No. 5 of 2023\nSection 194BA\n2.\nCircular

HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP INC,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 3, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

43A to assessments under Section 44BB. It introduces the concept of presumptive income and states that 10% credit of the amounts paid or payable or deemed to be received by the Assessee on account of 3 ITA Nos.1236/M/13 & 3068/M/2014 Helix Energy Solutions Group INC. "the provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHELF DRILLING J.T. ANGEL LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 2135/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Shelf Drilling J.T.Angel Limited, 4Th Floor, Schindier House, Main Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan: Aascs-2719-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs.

43A, however, the other provisions of the Act are applicable apart from the provision of section 448 for computation of income of non-resident engaged in the business of shipping.” 12. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that the decision rendered in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 87 ITR 542(SC) , on which

SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- IT, CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 2135/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Shelf Drilling J.T.Angel Limited, 4Th Floor, Schindier House, Main Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan: Aascs-2719-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs.

43A, however, the other provisions of the Act are applicable apart from the provision of section 448 for computation of income of non-resident engaged in the business of shipping.” 12. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that the decision rendered in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 87 ITR 542(SC) , on which

SHELF DRILLING J.T. ANGEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, IT, CIRCLE 4 (2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 2135/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Shelf Drilling J.T.Angel Limited, 4Th Floor, Schindier House, Main Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan: Aascs-2719-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs.

43A, however, the other provisions of the Act are applicable apart from the provision of section 448 for computation of income of non-resident engaged in the business of shipping.” 12. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that the decision rendered in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 87 ITR 542(SC) , on which

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 2135/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Shelf Drilling J.T.Angel Limited, 4Th Floor, Schindier House, Main Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan: Aascs-2719-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs.

43A, however, the other provisions of the Act are applicable apart from the provision of section 448 for computation of income of non-resident engaged in the business of shipping.” 12. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that the decision rendered in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 87 ITR 542(SC) , on which

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INT. TAXATION)RANGE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 4 of the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

43A...\". Since Section 44B overrides the provisions\nof Section 29 of the Act, therefore in our opinion Section 145A is not\napplicable for computing deemed income under Section 44B.\n\n27. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court will not be\napplicable in this case same was not rendered in the context of Section 44B\nand

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS provisions and CBDT has clarified through various circulars that\nif GST services are indicated separately in the invoice then no tax would be\ndeducted at GST components. By way of illustration following circulars have\nbeen referred to before us under various sections:-\n\nSr. No\nCircular No.\nRelevant Section\n1\nCircular No. 5 of 2023\nSection 194BA\n2\nCircular