LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act (Indian Income Tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law". Considering the facts-like absence of an agreement between the assessee and the AEs. for sharing AMP expenses ,payment made by the assessee under the head AMP to the domestic parties, failure of the TPO prove that

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act (Indian Income Tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law". Considering the facts-like absence of an agreement between the assessee and the AEs. for sharing AMP expenses ,payment made by the assessee under the head AMP to the domestic parties, failure of the TPO prove that

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act (Indian Income Tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law". Considering the facts-like absence of an agreement between the assessee and the AEs. for sharing AMP expenses ,payment made by the assessee under the head AMP to the domestic parties, failure of the TPO prove that

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by observing that he has\nasked the assessee to furnish various details vide notice issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act including the books of accounts of Head office\nwhere such expenses have been incurred, original vouchers supporting\nsuch expenses etc.,. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not\nfurnished any such details and with reference

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transferred and Mr. Y assumes the charge, Mr. Y should also issue a fresh 143 (2) notice to the assessee and that too within the time permitted. On query, no provision of law was shown to us by the learned authorized representative. We drew attention of the learned authorized representative to the provisions of section 129 of the income

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transferred and Mr. Y assumes the charge, Mr. Y should also issue a fresh 143 (2) notice to the assessee and that too within the time permitted. On query, no provision of law was shown to us by the learned authorized representative. We drew attention of the learned authorized representative to the provisions of section 129 of the income

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transferred and Mr. Y assumes the charge, Mr. Y should also issue a fresh 143 (2) notice to the assessee and that too within the time permitted. On query, no provision of law was shown to us by the learned authorized representative. We drew attention of the learned authorized representative to the provisions of section 129 of the income

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transferred and Mr. Y assumes the charge, Mr. Y should also issue a fresh 143 (2) notice to the assessee and that too within the time permitted. On query, no provision of law was shown to us by the learned authorized representative. We drew attention of the learned authorized representative to the provisions of section 129 of the income

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transferred and Mr. Y assumes the charge, Mr. Y should also issue a fresh 143 (2) notice to the assessee and that too within the time permitted. On query, no provision of law was shown to us by the learned authorized representative. We drew attention of the learned authorized representative to the provisions of section 129 of the income

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transferred and Mr. Y assumes the charge, Mr. Y should also issue a fresh 143 (2) notice to the assessee and that too within the time permitted. On query, no provision of law was shown to us by the learned authorized representative. We drew attention of the learned authorized representative to the provisions of section 129 of the income

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transferred and Mr. Y assumes the charge, Mr. Y should also issue a fresh 143 (2) notice to the assessee and that too within the time permitted. On query, no provision of law was shown to us by the learned authorized representative. We drew attention of the learned authorized representative to the provisions of section 129 of the income

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by observing that he has\nasked the assessee to furnish various details vide notice issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act including the books of accounts of Head office\nwhere such expenses have been incurred, original vouchers supporting\nsuch expenses etc.,. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not\nfurnished any such details and with reference

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by observing that he has\nasked the assessee to furnish various details vide notice issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act including the books of accounts of Head office\nwhere such expenses have been incurred, original vouchers supporting\nsuch expenses etc.,. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not\nfurnished any such details and with reference

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by observing that he has\nasked the assessee to furnish various details vide notice issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act including the books of accounts of Head office\nwhere such expenses have been incurred, original vouchers supporting\nsuch expenses etc.,. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not\nfurnished any such details and with reference

ROYAL CANIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shrivikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeroyal Canin India Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 1401 & 1402, F Wing, 14Th Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cts No.185/A, Graham Firth Mumbai-400 020 Compound, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063 Pan: Aadcr4417J Appellant Respondent

section 10(2)(xv) did not make distinction between civil and criminal litigation - Held, yes - Whether it is not open to department to prescribe what expenditure assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure. EKL Appliances Ltd v. CIT[2012] 24 taxmann.com 199 (Delhi)held that any legitimate expenditure for purpose of business carried cannot

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated 09.01.2015 computing a TP Adjustment towards performance guarantee at Rs. 5,26,17,801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s