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

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

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 32 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd make it clear that there has to be a transfer of "all or any rights" which includes

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 6(DUBLIN) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 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

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

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

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

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. ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT-1, MUMBAI

797/Mum/2018

90 of the Act. Like Article 25 of the Indo-USA treaty, treaties with various other countries such as Indo-Denmark, Indo-Hungary, Indo-Norway, Indo-Oman, Indo-US, Indo- Saudi Arabia, Indo-Taiwan also have similar provision providing for benefit of foreign tax credit even in respect of income not subjected to tax in India. However, Indo-Canada

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

90,893, as brand building expenditure having enduring benefit to the assessee and accordingly, treated the same as capital in nature. The Assessing Officer also granted depreciation @ 25% amounting to Rs.12,43,72,723. 31. The DRP, vide its directions dated 16.11.2015, upheld the disallowance made in the draft assessment order on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee

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

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

90,776/- to Rs. 314,11,35,651/-. 6.2 The CIT (A) ought to have held that the third proviso to Sec 48(ii) is not applicable to the appellant's case. 7. Additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) The CIT (A) erred in confirming action of the AO in rejecting the appellant's claim for additional depreciation

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

90,776/- to Rs. 314,11,35,651/-. 6.2 The CIT (A) ought to have held that the third proviso to Sec 48(ii) is not applicable to the appellant's case. 7. Additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) The CIT (A) erred in confirming action of the AO in rejecting the appellant's claim for additional depreciation

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

90,245/-, out of which, Customs duty was Rs.26,49,31,101/-, and the remaining was in the nature of penalty which was added back by the assessee. The assessee has taken the yacht named as „Tian‟ on rent from M/s. Ammolite Holding Limited, Channel Island, Jersey. The Assessing Officer has referred to some report and investigation carried

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

90,721 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(C) of the Act on\nthe basis of the order passed by the learned TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the\nAct be deleted.\n12. Ground 12 - TP adjustment of Rs.5,98,88,781 relating to\nreimbursement expenses\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR - 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation of Rs. 45,681 made by the AO is deleted. As a result, ground No. 4 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 30. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the adjustment of the amount receivable from the debtors against the provision for doubtful debts made in the assessment year

THE ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation of Rs. 45,681 made by the AO is deleted. As a result, ground No. 4 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 30. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the adjustment of the amount receivable from the debtors against the provision for doubtful debts made in the assessment year