ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT) TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

68 of erstwhile Service Tax law and Section 49 of CGST Act, the comparison is given herein below. XX XX 8 20. On perusal of the comparison of the relevant provision of service tax law and GST law it can be seen that both are indirect taxes and is recovered by the service provider on behalf of assessee

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

68 of erstwhile Service Tax\nlaw and Section 49 of CGST Act, the comparison is given herein\nbelow.\nXX\nXX\n20.\nOn perusal of the comparison of the relevant provision of\nservice tax law and GST law it can be seen that both are\nindirect taxes and is recovered by the service provider on\nbehalf of assessee

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 relates to payment of service tax. Sub-section (1) thereof stipulates that every person, providing taxable service to any person, shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66B of Finance Act 2012 in such manner, and within such period, as may be prescribed. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), in respect

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INT. TAXATION)RANGE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

44B or Section 145A of the Act or any other provisions of the Act. For instance, Section 50CA is a deeming provision which enables replacement of consideration with 'fair market value' where the amount of consideration is less than the fair market value determined in a prescribed manner. 16. Thus, in our view adding GST component

SEADRILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

68 relates to payment of service tax. Sub-section (1) thereof stipulates that every person, providing taxable service to any person, shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66B of Finance Act 2012 in such manner, and within such period, as may be prescribed. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect

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

68,616/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the draft assessment order dated 28.02.2014 was served on the assessee. The assessee-company filed its objections thereto before the DRP-II, Mumbai. The DRP-II issued its 2 M/s. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. directions on the assessee’s objection under section 144C(5) of the Act vide

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2) , MUMBAI

Section 68 of the Service Tax Act read with Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules has been judicially interpreted to mean that if the payer is entitled to realize or recover the same from the recipient, then it can be done only on the basis of a contractual understanding between the parties There is no statutory basis

HAPAG-LLOYD AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT 2(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blehapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft V. Dcit – 2(2)(2) C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 501, Satellite Gazebo, B-Wing Nariman Point 5Th Floor, Curu Hargovindji Marg Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaach0979G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

section 44B of the 16,68,06,241/- Act on feeder vessels 3. Total income @ 7.5% u/s. 44B 1,25,10,468/- 4. Taxable

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4448/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mangalore Refinery & Addl Cit 3(2) Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Tower, E- Vs. Wing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4436/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit-3(2) Mangalore Refinery & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Tower, E-Wing, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Madhur Agrawal /Ronak Desai प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Samuel Darse सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08/06/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.

44B. 6.3.2.It is said that the Act,being a taxing statute,has to be understood by reference to its language and that it is not the function of the judicial forums to stretch a taxing statute to rope in items of income which are not explicitly covered by the relevant taxing provision. No income can be brought to taxation

ORIENT SHIPPING SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee is allowed subject to the directions given above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Orient Shipping Services Llc Addl. Dit (It) Rg 4 1406/107 Technopolis Scindia House, Ballard बना Knowledge Park, 1St Floor, Estate, म/ Mahakali Caves Rd, Chakala Mumbai-400038 Vs. Andheri(E) Mumbai-400015 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaco3855C Appellant By Shri Jitendra Jain (Ar) Revenue By Shri Jasbir Chauhan (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2016 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 44B as applied by the 6 Orient Shipping Services Assessing Officer was correct. Following the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer, thus, treated the receipts of Rs.1,68

KULODAY TECHNOPACK P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

44B read with afore stated circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995, we hold that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and we order deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 9,60,431/- u/s 40(a)(ia) as made by the AO which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A). The assessee succeeds on this ground. We order accordingly

CMA CGM SA ,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMM OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONA)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1820/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बिधम/ Cma Cgm Sa Dcit, (International C/O Cma Cgm Agencies Taxation) Circle-2(1)(1) Vs. Room No. 1713, 17Th (India) Pvt. Ltd. One International Center, Floor, Air India Building, Tower 3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Nariman Point, Mumbai- Bapat Marg, Elphinstone 400021. Road West, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc9048G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Poojari/Jasmin Amalsadvala Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Dated 19/05/2021, Passed Under Section 143(3) R/W Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), Pursuant To The Directions Dated 12/05/2021, Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. Drp”) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. In This Appeal, Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “General 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Inr 46,94,25,922/- As Against Revised Income Of Inr 52,35,195/- As Per Revised Computation Submitted By The Appellant During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings;

section 44B of the Act. In absence of details of expenditure incurred for IHC, the AO applied net profit rate of 10% on IHC receipts and accordingly added Rs.37,75,68

FEEDERTECH PTE LYD,NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NARIMAN POINT

Accordingly.\n9.\nIn result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

44B @ 7.5% and claimed the same as exempt in the return. The ld.\nAR submitted that it is a well-settled position that in the case of eligible assessee\nas per section 144C(15) of the Act, the final assessment order passed by the AO\nwithout passing the draft assessment order is held to be null and void

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed