M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

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

house property'. It is,\ntherefore, directed to be considered as eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of\nthe Act.\"\nIn view of the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal,\nexclusion of cell site sharing revenue of INR.0.81 Crores from the business\nincome while computing deduction under Section 80IA of the Act cannot be\nsustained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

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

house property'. It is,\ntherefore, directed to be considered as eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of\nthe Act.\"\nIn view of the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal,\nexclusion of cell site sharing revenue of INR.0.81 Crores from the business\nincome while computing deduction under Section 80IA of the Act cannot be\nsustained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

SAI SHIPPING COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER/NFAC, DELHI

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

92A) are international transactions in terms of section 92B, the same needs to be verified. On perusal of records, it was found that the assessee had determined arm's length price of above international transactions through submission of report in form 3CEB u/s 92E. As regards Corporate Guarantee of Rs. 24.25 crore given by the assessee is concerned

CAPGEMENI BUSINESS SERVICES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Capgemini Business Assistant Commissioner Of Services (India) Ltd., Income Tax-1(2), Gate No.4, Unit 19, Mumbai Godrej Industries Complex, Vs. Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aabci 1046A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golvala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri A.A. Khan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2016 O R D E R

92A(2)(a) of the Act for the purpose of constituting AE; b. disregarding the internal comparability analysis between the Appellant's international transactions with overseas Unilever group entities for the period: - prior to the acquisition of Appellant's shareholding by Capgemini Group; and - post such acquisition. c. disregarding the Appellant's contemporaneous TP documentation and conducting his own comparability

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

92A;] (ii) income which falls under the head "Salaries", if it is earned in India. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the income of the nature referred to in this clause payable for— (a) service rendered in India; and (b) the rest period or leave period which is preceded and succeeded by services rendered

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. MATTEL TOYS(INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

House, “B”Wing, 4th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 013. PAN:AACCM 2563 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4415/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 अपील M/s. Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT-6(3) Vs. Mumbai

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLYUT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

92A to 92F, is purpose-built to\nensure that arm's-length determinations respond sensitively to market conditions that\nmay change from one year to the next. The Commissioner's presumption of factual\ncontinuity is the antithesis of that statutory instructions and construction.\n1. 4. The Commissioner's approach also nullifies the analytical sequencing mandated by\nIndian and international guidance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

92A to 92F, is purpose-built to\nensure that arm's-length determinations respond sensitively to market conditions that\nmay change from one year to the next. The Commissioner's presumption of factual\ncontinuity is the antithesis of that statutory instructions and construction.\n1. 4. The Commissioner's approach also nullifies the analytical sequencing mandated by\nIndian and international guidance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

92A to 92F, is purpose-built to ensure that arm's-length determinations respond sensitively to market conditions that may change from one year to the next. The Commissioner's presumption of factual continuity is the antithesis of that statutory instructions and construction.\n1. 4. The Commissioner's approach also nullifies the analytical sequencing mandated by Indian and international guidance

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

house airway bill” (Page 813- 817 of „APB‟) that was issued by the assessee to its customer which revealed that the assessee had executed the same as an agent of the carrier. Also, we find that the functions (carriage of goods) and liabilities (indemnification of the loss etc.) assumed by the assessee vis-a-vis the customer

ADIT (IT)-3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BARCLAYS BANK PLC., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.2050/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 The Adit(It)-3(2), Barclays Bank Plc, बनाम/ Scindia House, 21/23, Maker Chambers-Vi, Vs. N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.1728/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 Barclays Bank Plc, The Adit(It)-3(2), बनाम/ 21/23, Maker Chambers- Scindia House, Vs. Vi, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4654/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Adit(It)-3(2), Barclays Bank Plc, बनाम/ Scindia House, 21/23, Maker Chambers-Vi, Vs. N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4668/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 Barclays Bank Plc, The Adit(It)-3(2), बनाम/ 21/23, Maker Chambers- Scindia House, Vs. Vi, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4876G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

House, Vs. VI, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACB 4876G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 2 Barclays Bank अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee by: Shri P. Pardiwala Shri Nishant Thakkar Shri Saurabh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue by: Deshpande सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :28.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार

M/S. BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.2050/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 The Adit(It)-3(2), Barclays Bank Plc, बनाम/ Scindia House, 21/23, Maker Chambers-Vi, Vs. N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.1728/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 Barclays Bank Plc, The Adit(It)-3(2), बनाम/ 21/23, Maker Chambers- Scindia House, Vs. Vi, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4654/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Adit(It)-3(2), Barclays Bank Plc, बनाम/ Scindia House, 21/23, Maker Chambers-Vi, Vs. N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4668/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 Barclays Bank Plc, The Adit(It)-3(2), बनाम/ 21/23, Maker Chambers- Scindia House, Vs. Vi, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4876G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

House, Vs. VI, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACB 4876G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 2 Barclays Bank अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee by: Shri P. Pardiwala Shri Nishant Thakkar Shri Saurabh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue by: Deshpande सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :28.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार

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

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN 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 #### ii) conditions; 32. The definition of ALP, as reproduced above, speaks of two conditions. Firstly, the transaction must be between two unrelated