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

44B of the Act. 5. The Ld. AO and Ld. DRP have breached the principle of consistency and principle of judicial discipline by not following the aforesaid decisions and directions. Incorrect computation of book profits under section 115JB 6. The Ld.AO has erred in computing book profits under section 115JB at Rs. 1,41,14,48,399 without appreciating that

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

44B or Section 145A of the Act or any other provisions of the\nAct. For instance, Section 50CA is a deeming provision which enables\nreplacement of consideration with 'fair market value' where the amount of\nconsideration is less than the fair market value determined in a prescribed\nmanner. 16. Thus, in our view adding GST component to the deemed\nincome

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

44B or Section 145A of the Act or any other provisions of the\nAct. For instance, Section 50CA is a deeming provision which enables\n\nreplacement of consideration with 'fair market value' where the amount of\nconsideration is less than the fair market value determined in a prescribed\nmanner. 16. Thus, in our view adding GST component to the deemed

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

44B r.ws 90(2) and\nArticle 8 of India-Hong Kong Tax Treaty. Thus, in view of the\nExplanation 4A to Section 115JB(1), the provisions of Section\n115JB are not applicable to the assessee. Accordingly, ground\nNo 4 is allowed and the book profit computed by the Id. AO is\ndeleted.\"\n17.\nGiven that there is no change

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS provisions and CBDT has clarified through various\ncirculars that if GST services are indicated separately in the invoice then no\ntax would be deducted at GST components. By way of illustration following\ncirculars have been referred to before us under various Sections:-\nSr.No.\nCircular No.\nRelevant Section\nCircular No. 5 of 2023\nSection 194BA\nCircular

FAMILY PLASTICS AND THERMOWARE,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. 20(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Family Plastics & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Thermoware, Tax – 20(3), 4 Radha Apartments, Mumbai Vs. Telli Galli, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan: Aaaff4968L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Senthil Kumaran, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2016 O R D E R

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non- resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

ASST CIT RANGE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

TDS has been deducted under section 19B. While ruling on the issue of deduction u/s 195 and applicability of section 40(a) (i) to the demurrage charges, the Court held that; "12. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the facts of the present case, are governed by section

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

TDS has been deducted under section 19B. While ruling on the issue of deduction u/s 195 and applicability of section 40(a) (i) to the demurrage charges, the Court held that; "12. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the facts of the present case, are governed by section

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS has been deducted under section 19B. While ruling on the issue of deduction u/s 195 and applicability of section 40(a) (i) to the demurrage charges, the Court held that; "12. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the facts of the present case, are governed by section

DCIT- 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS has been deducted under section 19B. While ruling on the issue of deduction u/s 195 and applicability of section 40(a) (i) to the demurrage charges, the Court held that; "12. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the facts of the present case, are governed by section

ADDL CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. MANGALORE REFINER & PETROCHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1240/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Maker Tower-F Wing, 16Th Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Pan:Aaacm 5132 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1826/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Vs. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai. Mumbai-400 005. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chohan-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:S/ Shri S.E. Dastur & Madhur Aggarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:17/05/2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 15/12/2009,Of Cit (A)-7,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year.Assessee- Company, Engaged In The Business Of Refining Of Crude Oil, Selling Of Petroleum Products & Captive Generation & Distribution Of Power, Filed Its Return Of Income On 25/10/2006, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 18/12/2008, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.Nil.

TDS provisions of section 44B,that the interpretation of the assessee would render the provisions of section 44B and section

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazm/S. Orient Overseas Dcit (International Container Line Ltd. Taxation) - 4(2) C/O Oocl (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 11, Scindia Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor Vs. House, Ground Floor Saki Vihar Road, Powai Ballard Estate Opp. Santogen Silk Mills Mumbai 400038 Mumbai 400072 Pan - Aaaco5679F Appellant Respondent

44B of the Act. At para 17 of the order it was observed that service tax is not an amount paid or payable or received or deemed to be received by the assessee for services rendered by it. The assessee is only collecting the service tax for passing it on to the government. Their Lordships at para 19 of their

CMA CGM SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

44B r/w section 172. 14. Grounds no.10 to 14, relate to taxability of freight charges received from transportation of Cargo through Feeder Vessels. 15. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has received freight income of ` 9,03,44,553, towards transportation of goods by Feeder Vessels which terminated in other Ports without