ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

9 March 2021 passed by the Central Processing Centre ('CPC') under section 143(1) of the Act. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that in case of intimation under section 143(1), adjustments can be made in respect of items mentioned in sub-clause

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

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

9(I)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 thereby making it incumbent upon all such persons to deduct tax at source and pay such tax deductible at source under section. 195 of the Act; Held, (i) that in all these cases, the licence" that was granted under the enduser licence agreement, was not a licence in terms of section

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

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

9(I)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 thereby making it incumbent upon all such persons to deduct tax at source and pay such tax deductible at source under section. 195 of the Act; Held, (i) that in all these cases, the licence" that was granted under the enduser licence agreement, was not a licence in terms of section

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

depreciation in respect of the building of coal fire boiler, the reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason

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

797/Mum/2018

1)(vi) of the Act as well as CBDT Circular no.621 dated 9th December 2019. Having held so, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee had not deducted tax at source while making payment for purchases of software both for internal use as well as for trading purpose, the amount paid is M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., liable

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation on motor car.” 3. The first issue arising in present appeal is pertaining to disallowance of Rs.32,140, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

9, 2020 for AY 2014-15 which could be rectified vide an order under section 154 of the Act and is not a subject matter of review under section 263 of the Act. GENERAL 10. The order of the Pr. CIT should be suitably modified by granting the aforesaid proper and consequential reliefs to the Appellant. 11. The Appellant craves

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act for the definition of royalty. For such submission, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) NGC Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, ITA no.397/2015 (Bom.); and ii) Sonata Information Technology Ltd. v/s DCIT, 7 SOT 465 (Mum.). 12. The leaned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, even the payment made towards purchase

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (INT. TAXATION) - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

vi) all forms of software downloading, and (vii) áll forms of electronic communication system developed for the delivery and provision of content for use by an end-user, and (b) operate an official internet website for each Event” 5.49. On the strength of the Master Rights Agreement, GCC granted rights to SET the rights specified in Clause 4 read with

ADIT (IT)-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

vi) all forms of software downloading, and (vii) áll forms of electronic communication system developed for the delivery and provision of content for use by an end-user, and (b) operate an official internet website for each Event” 5.49. On the strength of the Master Rights Agreement, GCC granted rights to SET the rights specified in Clause 4 read with

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT IT-3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

vi) all forms of software downloading, and (vii) áll forms of electronic communication system developed for the delivery and provision of content for use by an end-user, and (b) operate an official internet website for each Event” 5.49. On the strength of the Master Rights Agreement, GCC granted rights to SET the rights specified in Clause 4 read with

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

9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as CBDT Circular no.621 dated 09.12.1991, in support of its conclusion. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed payment of Rs.127,66,11,637 [i.e., Rs.77,44,41,142 (+) Rs.50,21,70,495] under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non–deduction of tax at source under section

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

9 March 2015 stated that the fair value of identified intangibles as arrived at INR 427 2 million and value attributable to goodwill is an 690 8 million. Thus, it was stated that the balance purchase price of INR 11,180 million is towards intangible assets (including goodwill transferred from Wyeth to Pfizer pursuant to the amalgamation. Assessee claimed depreciation

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

9 March 2015 stated that the fair value of identified intangibles as arrived at INR 427 2 million and value attributable to goodwill is an 690 8 million. Thus, it was stated that the balance purchase price of INR 11,180 million is towards intangible assets (including goodwill transferred from Wyeth to Pfizer pursuant to the amalgamation. Assessee claimed depreciation

TELEFONICA UK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TAX), RANGE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

9(1)(vi) of the Act and also as per India-UK DTAA under Article 13(3). At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands covered in the case of M/s. Telefonica Depreciation Espana SA vs. CIT in ITA No.2657/BANG/2019, 180/BANG/2022& 817/BANG/2022 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2012-13. 3. The brief facts

TELEFONICA UK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TAX), RANGE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

9(1)(vi) of the Act and also as per India-UK DTAA under Article 13(3). At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands covered in the case of M/s. Telefonica Depreciation Espana SA vs. CIT in ITA No.2657/BANG/2019, 180/BANG/2022& 817/BANG/2022 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2012-13. 3. The brief facts

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

vi provision includes clause (xiii) of section 47 i.e. conversion of a Partnership firm into a company, which is the issue in instant appeal. vii. The 5th Proviso to section 32(1)(ii) has to two limbs. Firstly, it explicitly makes clear that depreciation in the hands of transferee and transferor should be computed as if there is no succession

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

9,43,69,363. The depreciation on these assets as per books of Rs.24.02 crores has been added back in the computation of total income. The State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 assessee further submitted that the capital recovery component included in the leased rental credited to the profit and loss account and offered for taxation