BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C ) are initiated on this issue. 8.6 Assessee filed objections before the DRP-1, Mumbai, disputing additions on the above issues. The DRP 1, Mumbai, vide order dated 6'" September 2017, passed under section 144C(5

PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

5) of section 144C of the Act will dispose off the objections. Sub–section (10) of section 144C of the Act makes it clear that the direction issued by the DRP while disposing off assessee’s objection shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. Sub–section (13) of section 144C of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer on receipt

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

disallowance u/s.14A of the Act of Rs.7,84,950/-. The assessee preferred objections before the ld. DRP. The ld. DRP issued directions u/s.144C(5) of the Act on 20/03/2021. Pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP, the ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on 17/04/2021 which is same

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

144C (13) read with section 143 (3A) and 143 (3B) of the act on 13 April 2021 computing the total income of the assessee under section 115JB of the act of ₹ 1,622,908,043/–. In the normal computation of total income total disallowance of ₹ 424,777,318/– was made. The assessee before us along with the adjustment

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

5. Disallowance for provision for project 17,16,22,641 risk 6. Disallowance under section 40(a) on 16,65,932 account of non-deduction of TDS on software purchase 7. Disallowance under section 40(a) due 64,45,907 to non-deduction of TDS of Foreign Parties 4 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. 8. Denial of claim

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

5. Non-granting of incremental deduction u/s. 10B on account of disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act. 6. Weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act granted on net expenditure incurred. 7. Disallowance of the rental expenditure u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 8. Disallowance of FCCB premium. 9. Disallowance of FCCB issue expenses. 3 I.T.A. No. 2877/Mum/2014 Strides

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92B(1) of the Act, since the said transactions of extending Corporate and Bank Guarantees have no bearing at all on the profits, income, losses or assets of the Appellant and that these guarantees did not cost anything to the Appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

GAMMON INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92B(1) of the Act, since the said transactions of extending Corporate and Bank Guarantees have no bearing at all on the profits, income, losses or assets of the Appellant and that these guarantees did not cost anything to the Appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowing the expenditure\non Scientific Research and Development u/s 35(2AB) totaling to Rs.\n4,24,13,526/- for all the three units, on the basis of the auditor's\ncertificate which stated that these expenses are beyond the\nguidelines laid down by DSIR. These guidelines are in contradiction\nwith the provisions of section

ATOS INDIA PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14 (1) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleatos India Private Limited V. Acit – 14(1)(1) Unit No. 1401, 14Th Floor Rom No. 481, 4Th Floor Supremus “E" Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 I Think Techno Campus Kanjurmarg (E), Mumbai - 400042 Pan: Aaaco2461J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Riddi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

144C(5) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1 ('Hon'ble DRP') erred in directing the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 14(1)(1), Mumbai ('Ld. AO')/ Joint

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), wherein the loss assessed is Rs. 38,62584 in pursuance to the directions issued by the DRP, as against the returned loss of Rs. 105 77,29,782 TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS: 2 Ground No. 2 to 4 Import of finished goods 3 Ground No. 5 to 6 Sale of Lubricants

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), wherein the loss assessed is Rs. 38,62584 in pursuance to the directions issued by the DRP, as against the returned loss of Rs. 105 77,29,782 TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS: 2 Ground No. 2 to 4 Import of finished goods 3 Ground No. 5 to 6 Sale of Lubricants

JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the sum of Rs 90,55,400 under section 40A(2) of the Act being J.M. Morgan Stanley Securities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.7118/Mum./2010 excess payment made to Mr Ashith Kampani. The learned DRP vide directions issued under section 144C(5

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED ('FETSCS')[FEDERAL EXPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH FETSCS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER1,2013],MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

section 144C(5) of the Act dated 28.12.2015. 2. In this appeal, assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal: “I. Ground on jurisdiction 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in passing the draft assessment order in the name of Federal Express India Private Limited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GUPSHUP TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

5) of section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall in conformity with the directions complete the assessment proceedings. It goes without saying that if no objections are filed by the Assessee either before the DRP or the assessing officer to the determination by the TPO, section 92CA(4) would come into operation. Therefore, it is very clear that

SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–2, Mumbai, (―learned DRP‖), for the assessment year 2011–12. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– Siemens Limited (Successor in Interest to Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) ―1. On the facts

JAGUAR LAND ROVER INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT./DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) made on corporate tax deserves to be quashed as the final assessment order itself is barred by limitation. In support following computation of period of limitation has been provided before us. 5 M/s. Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd. Sr. Events Relevant Dates No. 1. Assessment Year

SI GROUP-INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT -LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on additional grounds

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Si Group India Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Large Taxpayer Unit 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre No.1 Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Manish Kumar Singh

5) of section 144C of the Act will dispose off the objections. Sub–section (10) of section 144C of the Act makes it clear that the direction issued by the DRP while disposing off assessee’s objection shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. Sub–section (13) of section 144C of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer on receipt