DAE(SY22) LEASING (IRELAND)41, DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We accordingly so hold. 80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 to 6.8 stand allowed. Nature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease 81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that

ORTUS AIRCRAFT LEASE 5( DUBLIN) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI

TDS under Section 195 of the Act. Therefore, for the authority to hold that Petitioner's involvement at the stage of bidding process was without the approval of the authorities appears to be without substance.\n\nxxx\n\n74. As can be seen, the said paragraphs of the Vodafone International Holding B.V. v. Union of India (supra) support the case

TFDAC IRELAND II LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty's object and purpose. We accordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand allowed.\n\n62\nITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

DAE (SABS) 10296 IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION), CIRLCE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the findings

DAE (SABS) LEASING IRELAND 43 DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX.CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the findings

SKY HIGH XLIII LEASING COMPANY LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) (1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\n\n63\nITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

90 or 91 of the Act. It is thus explained that accordingly, provisions of section 40(a)(ii) are not applicable to the “penal interest”. Further, it is stated that the payment made by the Company on account of interest or penalty for delay in payment of federal or state taxes overseas which is compensatory in nature should be allowable

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

90 or 91 of the Act. It is thus explained that accordingly, provisions of section 40(a)(ii) are not applicable to the “penal interest”. Further, it is stated that the payment made by the Company on account of interest or penalty for delay in payment of federal or state taxes overseas which is compensatory in nature should be allowable

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS under section 195 of the Act. On the other hand, learned D.R. vehemently placed reliance on the orders passed by lower authorities. 44. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that on identical issue, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case vide order dated 30.10.2019, passed

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT-1, MUMBAI

797/Mum/2018

90(vi) of the Act. Even f the ambit of " royalty " were considered only under the Act, the definition of royalty in Explanation 2(v) to section 9 (1)(vi) of the Act would make it clear that there has to be a transfer of "all or any rights" which includes the grant of a licence in respect

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

90 of the Act and if it is not found to be so, assessee’s claim of deduction should be allowed. In view of our decision above, no separate adjudication of grounds no.1.2 is required. 7. In ground no.2, the assessee has challenged disallowance of expenditure incurred for purchase of software by invoking the provisions of section

LOPAREX HOLDING BV,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

TDS credit with regard to the interest amount received on the refund. 1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act, for underreporting of income. 1.8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in AY 2008-09 is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarvertual Court No. Iii It(Tp)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09 It(Tp) No. 794/Mum/2018 For Ay 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs Dcit Ltd.,9Th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29Th Floor, Wtc, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade Pan Aaacr4849R Mumbai- 05. Appellant Respondednt

90(1)(a)(ii) of the Act read with provisions of the applicable Double Tax Avoidance Agreements, for income taxes paid in overseas jurisdictions in relation to income eligible for section IOAI IOAA deduction in India. Grounds related to Transfer Pricing: 4. Transfer pricing adjustments / additions / variations. 4.1 The assessment of income made by the learned Assessing Officer

CULVER MAX ENTERTINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SONY PICTURES NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ERSTWHILE MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 16(9), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Culver Max Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., The Cit(A), Nfac, The Asst. Cit, (Formerly Known As Sony Pictures Circle 16(9), Room 439, 4Th Floor, Vs. Networks India Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Off Road, Malad Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400064 Pan No. Aabcs 1728 D Appellant Respondent

90 of the Act and that such claim is not debarred by section laim is not debarred by section 40(a) ii) of the Act. 40(a) ii) of the Act. Each of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to and Each of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to and Each of the above grounds

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 194H as held by ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 Honourable High court in CIT V Intervet india P Limited [2014] 49 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay). 14. Accordingly it was the contention of the learned authorised representative that the learned CIT – A has correctly held that no taxes required

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 194H as held by ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 Honourable High court in CIT V Intervet india P Limited [2014] 49 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay). 14. Accordingly it was the contention of the learned authorised representative that the learned CIT – A has correctly held that no taxes required