JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

disallowance has been made by the AO based on the seized material. based on the seized material. 16.4 The Section 153

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

153 of the Act. Without prejudice to the above Grounds, Grounds of appeal in respect of the additions made by the learned AO are as under: Allowability of deduction under section 80G in respect of contributions towards Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’): Rs. 10,53,00,000 4. Erred in confirming disallowance

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

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 of deduction in 1,74,35,513 employee's ESIC contribution & Labour welfare fund Sub-total (B) 23,12,42,582 Total (A+B) 102,00,93,469 4. Apart from

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.

153 of the Act would also be barred by limitation. For the sake of convenience, the original ground No.2 raised by the assessee is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Re: Validity of the Order: 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) dated 1 November 2019 is barred

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenditure 10. The Revenue Department has also filed an appeal against the final assessment vide ITA No. 3016/Mum/2016 and the grounds of appeal are as under:- Sr. Particulars No. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS 1 Ground No. 1: Rejection of comparables Le, Jalan Agencies Limited. TCS e-serve International Limited and Castrol India Limited M/s. Shell India Markets

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenditure 10. The Revenue Department has also filed an appeal against the final assessment vide ITA No. 3016/Mum/2016 and the grounds of appeal are as under:- Sr. Particulars No. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS 1 Ground No. 1: Rejection of comparables Le, Jalan Agencies Limited. TCS e-serve International Limited and Castrol India Limited M/s. Shell India Markets

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

disallowance made u/s. 14A. 13. Levy of the interest u/s. 234B of the Act. 14. Levy of the interest u/s. 234D of the Act. 15. Credit for TDS considered short by Rs. 45,06,609/- 16. Credit for tax paid on self-assessment not granted. 3. The assessee vide letter dated 9th June 2022 has raised additional grounds that

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)

disallowance of Rs. 2,78,87,591/-, being 100% of the expenditure on account of Sub-Contract Expenses to M/s Sun Construction Co., Rs. 1,12,02,660/-, being 33.33% of expenditure on account of purchases from M/s. Naveen Traders, Rs. 94,21,136/-, being 33.33% of expenditure on account of purchases from M/s. Narayan Suppliers

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)

disallowance of Rs. 2,78,87,591/-, being 100% of the expenditure on account of Sub-Contract Expenses to M/s Sun Construction Co., Rs. 1,12,02,660/-, being 33.33% of expenditure on account of purchases from M/s. Naveen Traders, Rs. 94,21,136/-, being 33.33% of expenditure on account of purchases from M/s. Narayan Suppliers

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The issue of interest on fixed deposits was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 143(3)", "Section 80IAB", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 153

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

disallowance of the expenditure even\nwhere taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income?\n13. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to delete the addition\nworked out u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act while computing the book

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed the same under section 43B stating that the interest payable is part and parcel of the Electricity Tax. The contention of the assessee is that the interest is not part of the tax payable and is compensatory in nature that should be allowed as deduction under section 37 of the Act. Therefore the question before us for consideration

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed the same under section 43B stating that the interest payable is part and parcel of the Electricity Tax. The contention of the assessee is that the interest is not part of the tax payable and is compensatory in nature that should be allowed as deduction under section 37 of the Act. Therefore the question before us for consideration

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, Shivalik Ventures

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

disallowed in the year of creation cannot be brought to tax again in the year when they are written back and the Appellant had provided the practice followed in relation to the provision of doubtful debts. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to allow the provisions for doubtful debts written back during the year under consideration

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

disallowed the same under section 43B stating that the\ninterest payable is part and parcel of the Electricity Tax. The contention of the\nassessee is that the interest is not part of the tax payable and is compensatory in\nnature that should be allowed as deduction under section 37 of the Act. Therefore\nthe question before us for consideration

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

disallowance of Rs. 29,47,184, referred to in ground 2 above.\n3.2. Without prejudice to 3.1 above, the relief should be granted in\n assessment year 2010-2011 wherein the Company has reversed\nprovision of Rs. 66,71,400 and offered the same for tax.\nThe Appellant therefore prays that it be appropriately allowed the\ndeduction under section 10A/10B