BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

144C of the IT Act, 1961 on 27.09.2017, following discrepancies have been found: (i) M/s. Barclays Bank PLC is a company incorporated in United Kingdom and is engaged in the business of banking and as such the provisions of section 36(1 )(viia) are applicable to it. As per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia), a bank

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8(3), Mumbai The learned Add. CIT thereafter, as per the mandate of section 144C(13)/(5) of the Act, completed the assessment, wherein a demand of Rs 297,26,54,239 was raised, however, no adverse observations/ additions was made with respect to the rights issue. 2.3 Subsequent to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38.What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

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

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

8. Per contra, Ms. Vatsala Jha representing the Department vehemently submitted that the order passed by TPO u/s.92CA(3)of the Act is a valid order passed within the period of limitation. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that CBDT vide Circular No.3/2008 dated 12/03/2008 in the Explanatory Notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, 2007 has explained that with

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

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

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

8. Per contra, Ms. Vatsala Jha representing the Department vehemently submitted that the order passed by TPO u/s.92CA(3)of the Act is a valid order passed within the period of limitation. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that CBDT vide Circular No.3/2008 dated 12/03/2008 in the Explanatory Notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, 2007 has explained that with

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

68,37,05,578 services 2. Intra-group services 10,51,45,309 Sub- total (A) 78,88,50,887 Corporate tax additions 3. Grant of lesser deduction under section 48,53,467 10AA of the Act in respect of remaining units 4. Denial of claim of depreciation on 2,92,19,122 goodwill 5. Disallowance for provision

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL LICENSING COMPANY BV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, V.P. & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2479, 2480 & 2481/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2007-08) In The Matter Of:-

8 I.T.A. No. 2479, 2480 & 2481/Mum/2017 Marriott International Licensing Company BV, order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in passing assessment order, which is bad in law and void ab initio as the same has been passed in violation of section 144C of the Income- Tax Act, 1961. 9. Ld. AR appearing on behalf

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

8 I.T.A. No. 2877/Mum/2014 Strides Shasun Limited Sr. Nature Para No. Amount No. of TPO 1) Interest on delayed export Para 7.4 Rs. 1,40,01,089/- receivable 2) Interest on Share Para 7.5 Rs. 61,00,91,759/- Application money 3) Guarantee commission Para 7.8 Rs. 3,38,05,864/- Total Rs. 65,78,98,712 11. Accordingly

PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

8) of 144C. The scheme of s.144C would thus be wholly violated if the Assessing Officer takes it upon himself to include in the final order of assessment such additions/disallowance/variations that do not form part of the order of draft assessment. 10. Further, we do not agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant to the effect

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

8 ITA NO. 2990/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Gammon India Ltd his order. The reference to the TPO and determination of arm's length price is part of the overall process of assessment and determination of income for which the time limit has been prescribed for 3 years in section 153. Assessment thus has to be completed

GAMMON INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

8 ITA NO. 2990/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Gammon India Ltd his order. The reference to the TPO and determination of arm's length price is part of the overall process of assessment and determination of income for which the time limit has been prescribed for 3 years in section 153. Assessment thus has to be completed

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED ('FETSCS')[FEDERAL EXPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH FETSCS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER1,2013],MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

144C(5) of the Act dated 28.12.2015. 2. In this appeal, assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal: “I. Ground on jurisdiction 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in passing the draft assessment order in the name of Federal Express India Private Limited, an entity

MACQUIE HOLDINGS B.V. & CO. KG,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68 taxmann.com 377 (Del.); and vi) CTBC Bank Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2017] 88 taxmann. com 141 (Del. Trib.). 8. The learned Departmental Representative opposing the contentions of the assessee submitted that the assessee being a foreign company is an eligible assessee as per section 144C

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

8 Date on which Transfer pricing 30.01.2015 order u/s 92CA(3) is passed. 9. Delay in passing of Transfer 1 day Pricing Order for AY 2011-12 10. Draft Assessment order passed 02.03.2015 on: 11. DRP Directions passed on: 29.12.2015 12. Final Assessment order passed 26.02.2016 on: 14. In view of the aforesaid chronology of events, the ld. Counsel submitted

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

8 Date on which Transfer pricing 30.01.2015 order u/s 92CA(3) is passed. 9. Delay in passing of Transfer 1 day Pricing Order for AY 2011-12 10. Draft Assessment order passed 02.03.2015 on: 11. DRP Directions passed on: 29.12.2015 12. Final Assessment order passed 26.02.2016 on: 14. In view of the aforesaid chronology of events, the ld. Counsel submitted

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

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue's SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GUPSHUP TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue’s SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

JAGUAR LAND ROVER INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT./DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

8. Sub-section 3A of section 92CA provides a time limit for passing of the order by the TPO u/s.92CA(3) in the following manner:- 3A) Where a reference was made under sub-section (1) before the 1st day of June, 2007 but the order under sub-section (3) has not been made by the Transfer