KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.6 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent M/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Jayant Kumar With Shri V. Jenerdhanan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018

disallowance of Rs.1,06,079/- in respect of society charges and property tax paid by the Appellant for the premises from where it conducts its business, even though same are incurred for business purposes and are fully allowable expense under section 37 of the Act. 2. For Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

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

92A(3) of the Act, in respect of\nadjustment on impugned arm's length interest on the preference\nshare capital of the Associated Enterprise, subscribed by the\nAppellant, by recharacterising preference shares as a loan.\n2. Disallowance u/s 14A :- Rs. 4,86,94,253/-\nThe learned Assessing Officer erred in computing the disallowance\nu/s 14A as per Rule 8D amounting

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

disallowance made on account of royalty paid to Wireless\nPlanning Commissioner (“WPC).\n73. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record, are: During the assessment proceedings, the assessee incurred\nan expenditure of Rs.97,57,68,959/- in respect of license fees payable to\nWPC, a wing of Department of Telecommunication towards

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

disallowance made on account of royalty paid to Wireless\nPlanning Commissioner (“WPC\").\n73.\nThe brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record, are: During the assessment proceedings, the assessee incurred\nan expenditure of Rs.97,57,68,959/- in respect of license fees payable to\nWPC, a wing of Department of Telecommunication towards

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)

Section 92A(2) of the Act, for which disallowance of interest payable/paid by the assessee is to be determined as per Section

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:

disallowed assessee’s claim on the reasoning that FCCNs issued by the assessee are in the nature of convertible debentures, hence, expenditure related to issue of such debenture is capital in nature. However, it is observed that while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005–06, in ITA no.3336/Mum /2011, dated 13th April

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D and 92E, unless the context otherwise requires,— ……… i) "arm's length price" means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled CO Nos. 257 & 258 /Mum/2024 M/s. JSW Steel Coated Products Limited ii) conditions; 32. The definition of ALP, as reproduced above, speaks

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

section 92A(2) is concerned, SPVs are covered by more than one clause as the entire voting power (clause a) and entire share capital (clause b) of the SPV is held by the owner of that SPV, but loan advanced, if the remittance is to be treated as a loan to the SPV, by the owner

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

section 92A(2) is concerned, SPVs are covered by more than one clause as the entire voting power (clause a) and entire share capital (clause b) of the SPV is held by the owner of that SPV, but loan advanced, if the remittance is to be treated as a loan to the SPV, by the owner

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

section 92A(2) is concerned, SPVs are covered by more than one clause as the entire voting power (clause a) and entire share capital (clause b) of the SPV is held by the owner of that SPV, but loan advanced, if the remittance is to be treated as a loan to the SPV, by the owner

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Us Is A Company Now Merged In Bennett

disallowance was proposed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but without any success. Learned DRP confirmed the action of the authorities below in principle but reduced the quantum of ALP adjustment by altering the benchmarking rate to 12.25% and correcting the period for which the loan was given. While doing

SS ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

section 92A(2)(g), assessee company and CP,USA are associated enterprises. This international transaction of payment of technical fee was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for computation of arm's length price, with prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad. Addl.CIT(Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad, vide Order dated 31.10.2008 u/s.92CA(3), computed the arm's length

M/S. SS ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. IDCIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

section 92A(2)(g), assessee company and CP,USA are associated enterprises. This international transaction of payment of technical fee was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for computation of arm's length price, with prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad. Addl.CIT(Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad, vide Order dated 31.10.2008 u/s.92CA(3), computed the arm's length

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowance was proposed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but without any success. Learned DRP confirmed the action of the authorities below in principle but reduced the quantum of ALP adjustment by altering the benchmarking rate to 12.25% and correcting the period for which the loan was given. While doing

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowing a sum of 2.53 crores in respect of Projects Written off. 16. The learned Assessing Officer erred in adding back the provisions for Wealth Tax and doubtful debt which computing the book profit u/ 115JB of the Act. ITA.NO. 120/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2008-09) Tata Chemicals Ltd 17. The appellant craves the leave to add amend, alter, modify or dele

M/S SUPREME TREON PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE. , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80-IC of the Act, as the assessee failed to comply with the provisions laid down in section 80-IC(7) read with section 80-IA(7) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available

THERMAX BABCOCK & WILCOX ENERGY SOLUTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

92A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 15. Brief facts relating to assessment proceedings are, for the assessment year 2011-12, the assessee had entered into several international transactions with its AE's within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. The said transactions were reported by the assessee in its form 3CEB filed

SHILPA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

92A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). b. Appellant's profession was an 'enterprise' within the meaning of section 92F(iii) of the Act separate from the Appellant being an 'enterprise'. 3. The Appellant prays that the alleged 'international transaction' was not between AEs and therefore the addition be considered as bad in law and be deleted. WITHOUT

AGILITY LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-9(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodagility Logistics Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Polaris, A-501/502, 5Th Floor, Income Tax Circle 9(1)(1), Off Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Mumbai, Room No. 210/260A, Vs. Andheri (East), 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaacl3717A (Appellant) (Respondent) Agility Logistics Private Limited Asstt. Commissioner Of Polaris, A-501/502, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Range 9(1)(1), Off Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 067 Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020

92A & 92B of the Act, requires that the transfer pricing adjustment is to be done only in respect of the transactions entered into between the assessee with its AEs and not with the non-AEs. Further, support was drawn from the order of the Tribunal in context of the aforesaid issue in the case of DHL Logistics Private Limited