M/S TRINE ENTERTAINMENT LTD,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2011-12

10A Rs.53,17,433/- 2 Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) Rs.53,90,600/- 3 Disallowance of capital expenditure u/s 37(1) Rs.5,84,698/- Total Rs.112,92,731/- The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271

ACIT (LTI-1), MUMBAI vs. TCS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

10A of the Act amounting to Rs.38277.37 crores. The AO noticed that the assessee did not make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. However, AO took the view that the disallowance should be worked out as per Rule 8D. Before the AO, the assessee contended that the Rule 8D was introduced only in March, 2008 and hence the same

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

10A(ab) means 'a transaction between enterprises other than associated associated associated enterprises, enterprises, enterprises, whether whether whether resident resident resident or or or non non non-resident. Accordingly, an uncontrolled transaction is a transaction entered into Accordingly, an uncontrolled transaction is a transaction entered into Accordingly, an uncontrolled transaction is a transaction entered into between 2 unrelated parties, which

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

10A/ 10B of the Act. Alternatively the Appellant prays that it be appropriately granted relief in assessment year 2010-11. Ground 4 - Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271

TECH MAHINDRA BUISNESS SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. Narrating the facts of case, he submitted that the assessee is engaged in providing I.T enabled services (ITES) to its group concerns. The assessee is a captive call centre. Earlier the call centre business was carried out by the Vodafone India Services Pvt. Limited. Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. in pursuance to slump sale

DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TECH MAHINDRA BUSINESS SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. Narrating the facts of case, he submitted that the assessee is engaged in providing I.T enabled services (ITES) to its group concerns. The assessee is a captive call centre. Earlier the call centre business was carried out by the Vodafone India Services Pvt. Limited. Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. in pursuance to slump sale

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In Assessment Year 2005-06 the Co- ordinate Bench restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer as the Revenue Authorities failed to verify the documents furnished by the assessee. In remand proceedings the Assessing Officer allowed the expenditure. We find that this issue is recurring and the Tribunal has been consistently

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In Assessment Year 2005-06 the Co- ordinate Bench restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer as the Revenue Authorities failed to verify the documents furnished by the assessee. In remand proceedings the Assessing Officer allowed the expenditure. We find that this issue is recurring and the Tribunal has been consistently

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In Assessment Year 2005-06 the Co- ordinate Bench restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer as the Revenue Authorities failed to verify the documents furnished by the assessee. In remand proceedings the Assessing Officer allowed the expenditure. We find that this issue is recurring and the Tribunal has been consistently

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

10A, it becomes abundantly clear that in computing ALP\nunder the transactional net margin method, a comparison of the assessee's net\nprofit margin from international transactions with its AEs has necessarily to be\nmade with that of the net pro fit margin realized by the same enterprise or an\nunrelated enterprise from a comparable but definitely uncontrolled transaction\ni.e

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

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

10A / 10AA of the Act till assessment year 2009-10, such as, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Oman, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan. In this context, he drew our attention to the relevant clauses of the DTAAs with the above noted countries. Thus, he submitted, tax credit has to be provided for taxes paid in overseas jurisdiction in respect of section

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

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

10A / 10AA of the Act till assessment year 2009-10, such as, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Oman, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan. In this context, he drew our attention to the relevant clauses of the DTAAs with the above noted countries. Thus, he submitted, tax credit has to be provided for taxes paid in overseas jurisdiction in respect of section

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Act The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and modify the above grounds during the course of the appeal. For the above and any other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing, it is prayed that necessary relief may be provided.‖ 5.1 The assessee

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income 8. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 8.1. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against\nthe Appellant.\nAll the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves\nfor leave to add, amend, vary, withdraw, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid\ngrounds at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter with the\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against\nthe Appellant.\nAll the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves\nfor leave to add, amend, vary, withdraw, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid\n10\nITA No.1169/Mum/2014\nVodafone Digilink Limited\ngrounds at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

penalty under section 271(1)(c)\nGround No.20\nGround No.23\n45.\nFrom the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the\nrevenue raised for AY 2011-12 are identical to AY 2010-11. Accordingly in our\nconsidered view our decision on above tabulated issues in AY 2010-11 are mutatis\nmutandis applicable

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE JT CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONA), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

penalty under section 271(1)(c)\nAY 2011-12\nGround No.1\nAY 2010-11\nGround No.1\nGround No.2 & 3\nGround No.2 &\n3\nGround No.4\nGround No.6\nGround No.5 to 12\nGround No.8 to\n15\nGround No.13\nGround No.16\nGround No.14 &\n15\nGround No.17\n& 18\nGround No.19\nGround No.22\nGround No.20\nGround No.23\n45.\nFrom the above table