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

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

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

penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions which deal 33 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Act by which deductions have

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

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

penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions which deal 33 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Act by which deductions have

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned DRP/AO have erred in disallowing tax depreciation of\nINR 16,00,000 claimed by the Appellant on the addition to fixed\nassets on account of ARC obligation.\n\n3. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ATOS INDIA PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14 (1) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleatos India Private Limited V. Acit – 14(1)(1) Unit No. 1401, 14Th Floor Rom No. 481, 4Th Floor Supremus “E" Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 I Think Techno Campus Kanjurmarg (E), Mumbai - 400042 Pan: Aaaco2461J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Riddi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that none of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act gets attracted in the facts of the Appellant's case.” 3. Further, assessee has raised following additional grounds: - “Ground No. 11: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

DHL LOGISTICS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

penalty proceedings under section 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

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS P LTD (ASOL),MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI & THE DY CIT,CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-section (1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per section 92CA(3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior

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.

1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP\nhas grossly erred in confirming the adjustments aggregating to Rs.\n2,84,68,27,994 made by the learned AO and the learned TPO under section 92CA\n8\nITA No.1169/Mum/2014\nVodafone Digilink Limited\nof the Act pertaining to the alleged excessive advertising, marketing

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

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 13:0 Re: Rectification of mistakes apparent on record; 13:1 The Assessing Officer has made certain mistakes apparent on record particularly with regard to the computation of total income and tax thereon. 13:2 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to rectify

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act as all the facts and details were disclosed in return of Income and its annexure and Report under Section 92E of the Act. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any of the ground/ s before or during the course of hearing.‖ 3. Brief fact

BOMBAY RAYON HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the additions made by the learned AO/TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble DRP be deleted and consequential relief be granted.” 3. The assessee herein is a subsidiary of M/s Bombay Rayon Fashions ltd (BRFL). The assessee company has established as a wholly owned subsidiary company in Italy

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(3), MUMBAI

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) & 271G of the Income Tax\nAct as all the facts and details were disclosed in return of Income and its annexures\nand Report under Section 92E of the Act.\n8 The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any of the ground/s\nbefore or during the course of hearing\n2. The brief

SHRI DILIP J. THAKKAR ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is initiated separately (Addition For A.Y. 2006-07 INR at Rs.10,50,41,824/-) 11. Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO in his detailed order and all his relevant observations; we shall discuss in the subsequent paragraphs. 12. Before us, the assessee representing himself, first of all submitted that

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.932 /मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As 12 Grounds. Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset

1 to 248 of the case law paper book. 10. We have perused the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11, wherein the identical issue as to making investment by the assessee in its overseas AEs but share had not been allotted during the year under consideration, which

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

92B of the Act. The said transactions were reported by the assessee in its form 3CEB filed for AY 2011-12. The transactions entered into by the Assessee with its AEs are as under: - 7 ITA NO. 733/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2012-13) Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd Sr. Value of Description of Transactions No. Transactions 1. Payment of Technical

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

92B, shall be computed "having regard to the arm's length price", section 92 F (ii) provides that "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 conditions". It could thus be a historical price, which is applied in a transaction