ASST CIT 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINCA DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit-11(3)(2), M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No. 33/Mum/2016 (Ita No. 649/Mum/16 (A.Y- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. (Tp)A 1854/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C). 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused ITA No. 649 & 1854 Mum 16, C.O. 33 Mum 16 M/s Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. the material available on record. At the outset of the hearing

VINCA DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vinca Developers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 116, First Floor, Income Tax, Circle 11(3)(2), Rehab Building No. 4, “ Akruti Room No. 427, Aayakar Annex” , Road No. 7, Marol Midc, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Andheri (East), Mubmai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viral Doshi (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Manish Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2019

u/s 144 C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 7,36,61,650/- after making addition amounting to Rs. 7,87,50,311/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment determined

WORLDWIDE SOFTWARE (EXPORTS),MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

92A of the Act), provisions of section 92E will apply in the present case (i.e for obtaining report from accountant), by treating the impugned transaction as international transaction and thereby initiating penalty proceeding under section 271 BA of the Act; Levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act 9. erred in confirming the action of AO in levy

WORLDWIDE SOFTWARE (EXPORTS),MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

92A of the Act), provisions of section 92E will apply in the present case (i.e for obtaining report from accountant), by treating the impugned transaction as international transaction and thereby initiating penalty proceeding under section 271 BA of the Act; Levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act 9. erred in confirming the action of AO in levy

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

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

DCIT CC 2(4), MUMBAI vs. CONCORD ENVIRO SYSTEMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income thereby leading to concealment of incomes. 5. Against the above order assessee’s appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by holding as under:- “Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) noted that this issue though the Assessing Officer

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

271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed any particulars of its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of the income. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing

AGFA HEALTHCARE NV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)- 1 (1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathaagfa Healthcare Nv Vs. Dcit, International Taxation- 1(1)(1) 5Th Floor Septestraat 27 Mortsel,Belgium-2640 Room No.517 C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Air India Building Llp, 28Th Floor Nariman Point Indiabulls Finance Centre Mumbai-400 021 Tower 3, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaica8105D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other 6. The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesee is a Belgium incorporated

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

CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES P LTD`,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

271 (1)(c) be dropped. IV. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the time of hearing. ITA No.8106/Mum/2011- AY.2004-05: Grounds field by the AO read as under

ACIT CIR 10(1), MUMBAI vs. CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWAN AS C.A. COMPUTER ASSOCIATES (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

271 (1)(c) be dropped. IV. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the time of hearing. ITA No.8106/Mum/2011- AY.2004-05: Grounds field by the AO read as under

CA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 6(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

271 (1)(c) be dropped. IV. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the time of hearing. ITA No.8106/Mum/2011- AY.2004-05: Grounds field by the AO read as under

DHL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Sooddhl Logistics Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 201A,Silver Utopia, Income Tax Circle 9(3)(1), Cardinal Gracias Road, Mumbai Vs. Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 059 Pan – Aaacm6824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act without appreciating that the Appellant has not concealed any particulars of its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of the income. That the AO be directed to re-calculate the interest levied under section 234B after considering the relief granted by the Hon‟ble Tribunal in respect of the grounds raised

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

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 of the SPV is clearly

ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

u/s 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the arm ‘s length price after obtaining the approval of Commissioner of Income Tax-5 Mumbai. The appellant had invested USD 1,00,000 equivalent to Rs. 45,74,740 1 USD = Rs 45.74) in Hybrid Capital Pte Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Hybrid Capital"), its wholly owned subsidiary in British Virgin