ACIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Pricing Officer u/s 92CA(1) of the Act on 11/01/2008. The jurisdiction of the ld. AO (i.e DCIT Circle 7(3), Mumbai) was assigned to the Additional CIT Range 7(3), Mumbai on 05/05/2008. Subsequently a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 29/07/2008 was issued by the ld.Additional CIT on the assessee. The assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Pricing Officer u/s 92CA(1) of the Act on 11/01/2008. The jurisdiction of the ld. AO (i.e DCIT Circle 7(3), Mumbai) was assigned to the Additional CIT Range 7(3), Mumbai on 05/05/2008. Subsequently a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 29/07/2008 was issued by the ld.Additional CIT on the assessee. The assessment

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 120(4)(b)/section 127 of the Act. The learned DR further submitted that in NTPC Ltd. (supra), the issue was determination of tax liability and all the facts were available on record, unlike in the present case. It was submitted that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings before the Transfer Pricing

ITO (IT) TDS-2, MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 120(4)(b)/section 127 of the Act. The learned DR further submitted that in NTPC Ltd. (supra), the issue was determination of tax liability and all the facts were available on record, unlike in the present case. It was submitted that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings before the Transfer Pricing

NOVRTIS INIDA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI

120(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (‘the Act’); and\nb. Assuming without admitting that he could be considered as the AO, in the absence of\ntransfer of jurisdiction in his favour as per section 127 of the Act, he could not have\npassed the said assessment order.\nITA NO.6832 & 6772/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)\nCO NO.190/MUM/2011\nM/s. Novartis

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

price at which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, SPL. RG.32, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(OSD) RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

THE DY CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

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:

b) of sub-section (4) of section 120 has been amended so as to provide that the powers and functions conferred on or assigned to the Assessing Officer may also be exercised or performed by an Additional Commissioner. This amendment will retrospective effect and will be effective from 1st June,-1994.” 12 The definition of Joint Commissioner in section

DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TRANSOCEAN DRILLING SERVICES (INDIA) PLT, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

4,80,58,593 Reimbursement of expenses paid ₹ 3,69,73,756 6. The Transfer Pricing Officer noticed that, though, as per Schedule–VI of the annual report income from service was shown at ₹ 410,59,77,730. The assessee has reduced therefrom service tax of ₹ 34,82,10,146, and sub–contractor cost

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

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with