ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazm/S. Orient Overseas Dcit (International Container Line Ltd. Taxation) - 4(2) C/O Oocl (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 11, Scindia Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor Vs. House, Ground Floor Saki Vihar Road, Powai Ballard Estate Opp. Santogen Silk Mills Mumbai 400038 Mumbai 400072 Pan - Aaaco5679F Appellant Respondent

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. Ground No. 1 (1.1 & 1.2) - Inclusion of service tax for the purpose of presumptive income under Section 44B of the Act 4.1 In these grounds the assessee has assailed the impugned order of the AO for including the amount of `1,79,11,894/-; being 7.5% of the service

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaorient Overseas Container Vs. Acit(It)-3(2)(2) Room No.1615, 16Th Floor Line Ltd. C/O Oocl (India) Pvt.Ltd. Air India Building Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor Nariman Point Saki Vihar Road Mumbai-400 021 Opp. Santogen Silk Mills Powai Mumbai-400 072 Pan/Gir No.Aaaco5679E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

u/s 144C(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for the AY 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Ground 1: Inclusion of service tax for the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) 1 On the facts and the circumstances of the case

DAICHI CHOUKISEN KAISHA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 406/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Daichi Choukisen Kaisha Asst. Dit(It)-1(2), बनाम/ C/O. M/S. Chowgule Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Malhotra House, 3Rd Floor, Vs. W. H. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcd 7362 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ruturaj Gurjar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.4,20,701/-. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: 2 M/s. Daichi Choukisen Kaisha 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2.1. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the levy

DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

DCIT- 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

ASST CIT RANGE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

44B if they are in shipping business. It would also be in a position to rely upon section 172 but the responsibility of the person making payment to a non-resident in sub-section (1) of section 195 cannot be SRP 65/79 ITXA989.15.doc avoided in the manner set out in other cases. The scheme as above operates only to cases

DCIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. HANJIUN SHIPPING COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit (It)-2(2)(2), Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd., 17Th Floor, Room No. 1729, C/O Hanjin Shipping India Pvt. Air India Building, Ltd., 402 Vedanta, Nariman Point, Vs. 779 Makwana Road, Mumbai - 400021 Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaach3759G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Samuel Darse (Cit Dr) Assesseeby : None Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/10/2018

section 44B of the Act and also levied interest u/s 234B and initiated penalty proceedings 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved

DEIMAS S.A.S,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N. K. Pradhan

u/s 44B of the Income tax Act would not arise. Consequently the question whether the service tax would form part of Gross receipts or not in the context of sec. 44B of the Act would become academic in nature. In any case, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High

CMA CGM SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

44B r/w section 172. 14. Grounds no.10 to 14, relate to taxability of freight charges received from transportation of Cargo through Feeder Vessels. 15. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has received freight income of ` 9,03,44,553, towards transportation of goods by Feeder Vessels which terminated in other Ports without

SMIT SINGAPOARE PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodsmit Singapore Pte Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Srbc & Associates, Of Income-Tax (I.T.)-4(2)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai- 400028 Pan – Aaocs1031L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R Respondent By: Shri Sanjay Singh & Shri T.S. Khaisa, Cit, D.Rs Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2020

271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend/ delete/ withdraw any or all of the grounds at or before the hearing of the appeal so as to enable the Income tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal according

CMA CGM SA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Additional Grounds of Appeal read as under: “ 17. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the income earned in the nature of IT support fees [Fees for Technical Services ('FTS')] amounting to INR 8,12,79,561/- from its Agency company

DDIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ARC LINE MAURITIUS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and hence they are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. We shall first take up the appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee is a shipping company incorporated in Mauritius. In all the years under consideration, the assessee

DY CIT-IT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ARC LINE, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I T Act are initiated for concealing particulars of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, 7.5% of Rs 31,37,78,582/- (the gross receipts) amounting to Rs. 2,35,33,407/- is being held as the income of the assessee, for A.Y. 2013-14 u/s 44B