DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

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

TDS credit of INR 8,60,996 claimed by the\nAppellant in the return of income of AY 2018-19.\nIncorrect levy of interest under Section 234C of the Act\n19. Erred in levying additional interest amounting to INR 1,52,106 under\nSection 234C of the Act.\nInitiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act\n20. Erred

INDIA MEDTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodindia Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Of Income-Tax-10(1)(1), Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Room No. 209, Vs. Ghatkopar Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra- 400093 Pan – Aaaci4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Rajan R. Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2019

TDS amounting to INR 11,20,299 instead of INR 11,32,678 as claimed in the return of income. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 63. erred in levying under section 234B of the Act. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 64. erred in initiating penalty under section

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

92B, we are inclined to accept partial finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer that it is a quasi-capital and its cost has to be benchmarked in the international market. In the given case, the Transfer Pricing Officer has already observed that the cost of capital of the assessee is at 9.945% based on the Balance Sheet submitted

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

TDS over assessed as income from other sources instead of assessed as income from other sources instead of Business Income Business Income Grand Total (1+2) Grand Total (1+2) 4,69,83,120/- 4,69,83,120/ 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

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

TDS or to obtain certificate under section 195 of the Act. 35. On the other hand the ld. AR for the assessee submits that this ground of appeal is covered by the decision of AY 2009-10. The Tribunal in AY 2009- 10 has categorically held that the services were rendered outside India and that the agents have no permanent

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 92B of the Act. On a without prejudice basis, the Assessee has further contended that even if it is assumed that providing corporate guarantee to AE constitutes an international transaction, the CIT(A) erred in determining guarantee fee rate at 0.5% as the same could not have been more than 0.263% as determined by the independent chartered accountant

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 92B of the Act. On a without prejudice basis, the Assessee has further contended that even if it is assumed that providing corporate guarantee to AE constitutes an international transaction, the CIT(A) erred in determining guarantee fee rate at 0.5% as the same could not have been more than 0.263% as determined by the independent chartered accountant

NIVEA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

92B are described as an 'International transaction'. This might be only an illustrative list, but significantly' it does not list AMP spending as one such transaction. 58. In Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), one of the submissions of the Revenue was: "The mere fact that the service or benefit has been provided by one party to the other would

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

92B, read with section 92C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer 27 ITAs 1240/Mum/2016 ITA 1518/Mum/2017 Mondelez International pricing -Meaning of international transaction - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee, an Indian company sold its medical imaging business to 'C' Ltd. another Indian company for USD 13.543 million - Being domestic transaction, assessee returned its income, disclosing sale transaction as a normal

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

92B, read with section 92C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer 27 ITAs 1240/Mum/2016 ITA 1518/Mum/2017 Mondelez International pricing -Meaning of international transaction - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee, an Indian company sold its medical imaging business to 'C' Ltd. another Indian company for USD 13.543 million - Being domestic transaction, assessee returned its income, disclosing sale transaction as a normal

CADBURY INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2214/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Acit Range-5(1), M/S Mondelez India M. K. Road, Aayakar Foods Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, Tower-3 (Wing C), India Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco0460H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Hiten Chande, Ars. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sunil Jha, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel –Iii, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

92B are described as an 'International transaction'. This might be only an illustrative list, but significantly' it does not list AMP spending as one such transaction. 58. In Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), one of the submissions of the Revenue was: "The mere fact that the service or benefit has been provided by one party to the other would

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in part

Section 92B of the Act" ], "issues": "Whether transfer pricing adjustments on corporate guarantees are justified and whether credit for foreign taxes and TDS

KEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in part

TDS was also set aside for verification.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 90 of Income-tax Act, 1961", "Sec 91 of Income-tax Act, 1961", "Sec 115JB of the Act", "Sec 14A of the Act", "Sec 92B

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

TDS on the assessee as the assessee cannot be expected to deduct tax at source in respect of a transaction effected long time back anticipating such amendment. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) NGC Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, ITA no.397/2015 (Bom.); and ii) Channel Guide India Ltd., ITA no.1221/Mum./2006, dated 29.08.2012. 11. Further

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

TDS" and "Advance Tax in Form 26AS of AY 2016-17. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 9. Erroneous levy of interest under Section 2348 of the Act amounting to INR 3,46,58,553 [Refer Income tax computation Form along with Final Assessment Order] The learned AO erred in levying interest under Section

KEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blekec International Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 5(2)(1) 463 Rpg House Room No. 571, 5Th Floor Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhawan Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aacck5599H (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS credit as claimed by the Appellant. 7. Short credit of Regular Tax Paid: 7.1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in granting short credit in respect regular tax paid by the Appellant to the extent of Rs 13,34,12,710. 7.2. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed

KEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 92B of the Act (inserted with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 by Page No. 14 ITA NOs. 4021, 4022, 4076 & 4078/MUM/2023 (A.Ys: 2015-16 & 2016-17) KEC International Limited Finance Act 2012). The CIT(A) rejected the contention of the Assessee to benchmark the guarantee fee in respect of the three corporate guarantees at the rate of 0.2% by highlighting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 92B of the Act (inserted with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 by Page No. 14 ITA NOs. 4021, 4022, 4076 & 4078/MUM/2023 (A.Ys: 2015-16 & 2016-17) KEC International Limited Finance Act 2012). The CIT(A) rejected the contention of the Assessee to benchmark the guarantee fee in respect of the three corporate guarantees at the rate of 0.2% by highlighting

INDIA MEDTRONIC PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10 (1)91), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

92B are described as an 'International transaction'. This might be only an illustrative list, but significantly' it does not list AMP spending as one such transaction. 58. In Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), one of the submissions of the Revenue was: "The mere fact that the service or benefit has been provided by one party to the other would