HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

TDS under section 40a(ia) of the Act. AO further disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

TDS under section 40a(ia) of the Act. AO further disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

TDS under section 40a(ia) of the Act. AO further disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

92D of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned PCIT has grossly and unfairly erred in directing that the penalty provisions of section 271BA were M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. applicable to the Company on account of its not having filed report in Form 3CEB required under

M/S. SP IMPERIAL STAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 3(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

92D(3) of the Act was also issued to the assessee. It is observed that the assessee had issued secured, redeemable, rated, listed, non-convertible bonds to certain foreign enterprises which are held by Credit Opportunities II PTE Limited, DB International (Asia Limited) and Omers Administration-Corporation, GMAA EM and the total amount outstanding with respect to the said debentures

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

92D and 92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more\nassociated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature\nof purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

92D and 92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more\nassociated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature\nof purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

92D and 92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more associated\nenterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of\npurchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

92D and 92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more associated\nenterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of\npurchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

92D in respect of any person or class of persons.]' Provisions of section 2 (28C) of the Act defines the Joint Commissioner means a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Or An Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax under subsection (1) of section 117 of the income tax act. Further with retrospective effect from 01/06/1994 section

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). Inclusion of comparable for Data Processing & Support services segment: 1.3.1 The learned AO/TPO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in applying the filter of diminishing revenue and persistent loss as well as different financial year ending

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

92D of the\nAct read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules').\nInclusion of comparable for Data Processing & Support services segment:\n1.3.1 The learned AO/TPO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\non facts and in law in applying the filter of diminishing revenue and\npersistent loss as well as different financial year ending

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. (c) Directing the ld. AO to verify how the unbilled Revenue amounting to Rs.292.27 crores has been accounted by the assessee in its books of accounts. (d) Directing the ld. AO to verify the nature of transactions entered by the assessee with its Subsidiaries / Associates and consequently to verify whether the assessee company had failed

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. (c) Directing the ld. AO to verify how the unbilled Revenue amounting to Rs.292.27 crores has been accounted by the assessee in its books of accounts. (d) Directing the ld. AO to verify the nature of transactions entered by the assessee with its Subsidiaries / Associates and consequently to verify whether the assessee company had failed

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. (c) Directing the ld. AO to verify how the unbilled Revenue amounting to Rs.292.27 crores has been accounted by the assessee in its books of accounts. (d) Directing the ld. AO to verify the nature of transactions entered by the assessee with its Subsidiaries / Associates and consequently to verify whether the assessee company had failed

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. (c) Directing the ld. AO to verify how the unbilled Revenue amounting to Rs.292.27 crores has been accounted by the assessee in its books of accounts. (d) Directing the ld. AO to verify the nature of transactions entered by the assessee with its Subsidiaries / Associates and consequently to verify whether the assessee company had failed

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. (c) Directing the ld. AO to verify how the unbilled Revenue amounting to Rs.292.27 crores has been accounted by the assessee in its books of accounts. (d) Directing the ld. AO to verify the nature of transactions entered by the assessee with its Subsidiaries / Associates and consequently to verify whether the assessee company had failed

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. (c) Directing the ld. AO to verify how the unbilled Revenue amounting to Rs.292.27 crores has been accounted by the assessee in its books of accounts. (d) Directing the ld. AO to verify the nature of transactions entered by the assessee with its Subsidiaries / Associates and consequently to verify whether the assessee company had failed