PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

House Property", in such case, only the expenditure related to building ought to be considered for disallowance and not the shared expenses which were not related to building at all. ii. The Appellant prays that for the purpose of disallowance; the AO be directed to consider only building related expenses. Ground VI: i. On the facts and circumstances

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

House Property", in such case, only the expenditure related to building ought to be considered for disallowance and not the shared expenses which were not related to building at all. ii. The Appellant prays that for the purpose of disallowance; the AO be directed to consider only building related expenses. Ground VI: i. On the facts and circumstances

JT. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD., MUMBAI

house property income, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, following precedents in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. Regarding disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal directed that net interest expenses should be considered and addressed the issue of double disallowance, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 92C

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Housing Co. Ltd NC-Significant RPT 6 Crystal Hues Ltd 11.27% 7 Quadrant Communication Ltd 15.84% 8 Indus Technical and Financial Consultants Ltd 12.05% Average 11.35% 7. Accordingly, the TPO arrived at the TP adjustment as per below working:- Particulars Amount Expenditure incurred for developing the intangibles Rs.1,61,01,97,731 Mark-up on Expenditure incurred for developing

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Housing Co. Ltd NC-Significant RPT 6 Crystal Hues Ltd 11.27% 7 Quadrant Communication Ltd 15.84% 8 Indus Technical and Financial Consultants Ltd 12.05% Average 11.35% 7. Accordingly, the TPO arrived at the TP adjustment as per below working:- Particulars Amount Expenditure incurred for developing the intangibles Rs.1,61,01,97,731 Mark-up on Expenditure incurred for developing

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

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

House, Unit No.2001, 20th Floor Mumbai-400 020 Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai0400 013 PAN : AAAC0460H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri J.D. Mistri, Shri Hiten Chande Present for the Department Shri Manoj Kumar – CIT DR Date of hearing 07/09/2023 Date of pronouncement 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S (AM): These

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

92C(3) are not satisfied before the passing of the final Assessment Order. (viii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Transfer Pricing adjustments cannot be made without arriving at the finding that the intention of the assessee was to evade tax or manipulate prices or shift profits outside of India. Further, such finding of tax evasion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

92C(3) are not satisfied before the passing of the final Assessment Order. (viii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Transfer Pricing adjustments cannot be made without arriving at the finding that the intention of the assessee was to evade tax or manipulate prices or shift profits outside of India. Further, such finding of tax evasion

TATA SONS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-58, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1093/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaact-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Jcit, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.1349/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Jt.Cit (Osd)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Stree, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaact-4060-A अपीलाथ""ारा/Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah, Advocates. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/03/2024

92C of the Act. As per RBI Circular (supra), where shares of an unlisted company are disinvested in a private arrangement, the share price should not be less than the value certified by a Chartered Accountant/Certified Public Accountant based on the latest Audited Financial Statement of the wholly owned subsidiary (WOS). It is an undisputed fact that TGBGL

JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

House, Urmi Estate, Vs. Mumbai 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013 Maharashtra PAN : AAACN1335Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue by Shri Vinod Tanwani Date of hearing 09-05-2023 Date of pronouncement 05-06-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : The Hon’ble President

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision where a company can claim the expenditure is section 37 of the ActHence, it is pertinent to test the conditions mentioned in section 37 in order to conclude whether the expenditure is allowable? Section 37 of the Act Page

DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Properties Put. Ltd. wherein the rate of SBI PLR 300bps was considered as the benchmarking rate. It is the intention of the law, and a generally accepted principal that benchmarking rate should be applied on a case to case basis and a specific rate of 300bps cannot be considered as a thumb rule for all cases if it is accepted

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Properties Put.\nLtd. wherein the rate of SBI PLR 300bps was considered as the benchmarking rate. It is the\nintention of the law, and a generally accepted principal that benchmarking rate should be\napplied on a case to case basis and a specific rate of 300bps cannot be considered as a thumb\nrule for all cases if it is accepted

COLAGATE-PALMOLIVE (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhcolgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., Additional Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre, Income Tax-10(3) Main Street, Vs. Hiranandani, Gardens, Pawai, Mumbai-400076 Pan: Aaacc4309B Appellant Respondent

housing deposits in respect of rent-free accommodations provided to employee of the assessee company and accordingly not related to investment in tax free bonds. The learned AR further submits that Rule8D is not applicable for the year under consideration, which is now admitted position under the law. The reserve and surplus of assessee are 8 Colgate Palmolive (India

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

section 92C(2) of the Act. This ground is consequential to Ground no.1 and therefore, the same is also sent back to the file of the DRP, to be decided along with Ground no.1. 6. Ground No.4: In this ground, the assessee has challenged the action of DRP in confirming the action of AO in taxing an amount of Rs.5

ACIT, CIR.-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

house property. 3) Interest on Income Tax Refunds: The CIT(A) erred in not allowing the set-off of interest charged on Income Tax demands against interest granted on Income Tax refunds, during the same year. 4) Disallowance of Interest & Other Expenses U/S. 14A & Sec.37 & 115JB: i) The CIT(A) erred whilst computing the disallowance under Rule

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

house property. 3) Interest on Income Tax Refunds: The CIT(A) erred in not allowing the set-off of interest charged on Income Tax demands against interest granted on Income Tax refunds, during the same year. 4) Disallowance of Interest & Other Expenses U/S. 14A & Sec.37 & 115JB: i) The CIT(A) erred whilst computing the disallowance under Rule

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property at a notional value. (b) The CIT(A) further erred in not considering the Municipal Rateable Value for the purpose of arriving at the annual value of the property. (c) Without prejudice to above and in any event, as the amount recovered towards Municipal taxes, water charges, etc. was Rs. 8,33,181 the amount to be considered