THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

92C of tlie Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Based on the said study, having regard to commercial\nand cronomic lactors, the amount paid/payable or received receivable in respect of the above transaction has been computed by the assessee, having regard\nto the arm's length price.\nNuto'st Seeneding to the assestre, the above mentioned transactione has been entered

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Trent House, First Floor, Large Tax Units (Ltu) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaics1404P Appellant Respondednt

92C(4) and the order passed by AO is erroneous as the same is passed without making necessary enquiries. The order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. By allowing deduction u/s 10B by the AO, the department has suffered loss of revenue and accordingly the assessment order is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings. Reasons to believe recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer does not advert to any fresh tangible material which has come in his possession after the conclusion of the original assessment proceedings. They only make reference to the Assessment Order for AY 2014-15 and notes to account to the financial statement which in no way constitute fresh tangible

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings. Reasons to believe recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer does not advert to any fresh tangible material which has come in his possession after the conclusion of the original assessment proceedings. They only make reference to the Assessment Order for AY 2014-15 and notes to account to the financial statement which in no way constitute fresh tangible

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings. Reasons to believe recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer does not advert to any fresh tangible material which has come in his possession after the conclusion of the original assessment proceedings. They only make reference to the Assessment Order for AY 2014-15 and notes to account to the financial statement which in no way constitute fresh tangible

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are accordingly dismissed\nand those by the assessee are allowed

92C of tlie Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Based on the said study, having regard to commercial\nand cronomic lactors, the amount paid/payable or received receivable in respect of the above transaction has been computed by the assessee, having regard\nto the arm's length price.\nNuto'st Seeneding to the assestre, the above mentioned transactione has been entered

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

92C of tlie Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Based on the said study, having regard to commercial\nand cronomic lactors, the amount paid/payable or received receivable in respect of the above transaction has been computed by the assessee, having regard\nto the arm's length price.\nNuto'st Seeneding to the assestre, the above mentioned transactione has been entered

ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Essar Shipping Limited V. Pr. Cit-5 Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg Room No. 501 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aacce3707D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer”' 23. As could be seen from the above, if the assessee entered into any international transactions in any previous year in order to compute the arm’s length price in relation to such international transactions the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner refer to TPO for determination

DCIT(IT) - 2(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

92C of tlie Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Based on the said study, having regard to commercial\nand cronomic lactors, the amount paid/payable or received receivable in respect of the above transaction has been computed by the assessee, having regard\nto the arm's length price.\nNuto'st Seeneding to the assestre, the above mentioned transactione has been entered

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

92C, the other method for determination of the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be any method which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non- associated enterprises, under

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act is purely academic and calls for no adjudication.‖ 11.6. On perusal of above decision of the Tribunal, we find that identical issues stands decided in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act is purely academic and calls for no adjudication.‖ 11.6. On perusal of above decision of the Tribunal, we find that identical issues stands decided in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

M/S. NATUREX INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI DCIT-CIR 2(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd. 502, 5Th Floor, Akruti Centre Point, Midc Central Road, Andheri (East), Chakala Midc S.O. Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv0883A ..... Appellant Vs. Nfac, Delhi/Dcit Cir. 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

u/s. 144C (5) preferred the present appeal before us. 4. We have gone through the draft assessment order alongwith the report of TPO, directions of the Ld. DRP, final assessment order and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds raised in Form No. 36 and additional ground raised vide application dated 06.09.2023. The application filed for additional ground is rejected

JT CIT 24(2), MUMBAI vs. M.K., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

147 is issued almost 5 months after the TPO order is passed. The argument of the appellant is that the AO needed to take previous approval of the Commissioner before referring the it to the TPO and that the same has not been done. The section as it stood in 2009-10 is reproduced here: "(1) Where any person, being

BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

147 r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. Since the issues are common and connected and the appeals were heard together these are being consolidated and disposed of together for the sake of convenience 2. The common grounds of appeal read as under:- For the sake of reference

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

92C of the Act. In view of this, the reliance on the above decision of the honourable Delhi High Court does not support the case of the assessee. Thus we hold that, the order passed by the additional Commissioner of income tax u/s 92CA (3) of the income tax act is appellate order passed by a transfer pricing officer

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

147 of the Act dated 05/12/2017. In this reassessment, TDS credit of Rs.48,55,95,799/- was granted to the assessee as against Rs.48,60,04,836/- already granted by the ld. AO vide 154 order dated 03/09/2014. 5.5. Subsequently the second search u/s.132 of the Act took place in the premises of the assessee alongwith ABIL group on 21/07/2017

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

147 of the Act dated 05/12/2017. In this reassessment, TDS credit of Rs.48,55,95,799/- was granted to the assessee as against Rs.48,60,04,836/- already granted by the ld. AO vide 154 order dated 03/09/2014. 5.5. Subsequently the second search u/s.132 of the Act took place in the premises of the assessee alongwith ABIL group on 21/07/2017