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

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

4 stands partly allowed. . 4 stands partly allowed.” 8.3 Based on the above finding for assessment year 2011 ased on the above finding for assessment year 2011 ased on the above finding for assessment year 2011-12, the Tribunal in assessment year 2012 ribunal in assessment year 2012-13 also accepted the floating rate 13 also accepted the floating rate

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

section 80HHC /80HHE etc. there is\nspecific provision to exclude from the \"Profit of the Business\", the other\nincome such as commission, brokerage, interest, rent etc. However,\nthere is no specific exclusion while computing deduction under section\n10A/10AA/10B of the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions,\nit is clear that, what is exempted is not merely the profits

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

134/- (i) Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

134/- (i) Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

134/- (i) Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

134/- (i) Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act both under normal provisions of the Act\nas well as under the computation of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. We find\nthat the Id. CIT(A) had deleted the said disallowance by observing as under:-\n\"This is a matter arising for the first time in the case of assessee

ASST CIT RG 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CRISIL LTD, MUMBAI

section 92C(2) of the Act read with the\nRules thereto and thus, the entire transfer pricing addition would stand\ndeleted.\n7.2. The Appellant submits that it had also raised certain legal grounds\nvide its Additional ground petition dated 08 January 2019 filed on 17\nJanuary 2019. The Appellant humbly submits that in case the above\ngrounds on merits

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing adjustment, in seriatim, are given below: 4. Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. ('Mold-Tek') Functionally Different: 4.1. Mold-Tek is engaged in providing structural engineering KPO services to various clients such as PEB, Rebar, etc. (Refer page no. 429 of the paperbook). The Appellant wishes to submit that structural engineering services are a branch of civil engineering services that

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing adjustment, in seriatim, are given below: 4. Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. ('Mold-Tek') Functionally Different: 4.1. Mold-Tek is engaged in providing structural engineering KPO services to various clients such as PEB, Rebar, etc. (Refer page no. 429 of the paperbook). The Appellant wishes to submit that structural engineering services are a branch of civil engineering services that

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 9(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing adjustment, in seriatim, are given below: 4. Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. ('Mold-Tek') Functionally Different: 4.1. Mold-Tek is engaged in providing structural engineering KPO services to various clients such as PEB, Rebar, etc. (Refer page no. 429 of the paperbook). The Appellant wishes to submit that structural engineering services are a branch of civil engineering services that

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

4,494,036 Variation / Adjustment 1,14,66,847 9.4.2 The assessee submitted before the DRP that as per the valuation report based on net effect value method and discounted cash flow method, the share price is in the range of Zar 1371 to Zar 1515 and the price charged is within this range and accordingly, the transaction was considered

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

134 ITD 339 wherein it has been held that where the income of the shipping company is computed as per the tonnage tax scheme, only those expenses incurred for the said business are deemed to have been allowed and no addition to such income can be made by way of a disallowance under section 14 A on account

DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

134 ITD 339 wherein it has been held that where the income of the shipping company is computed as per the tonnage tax scheme, only those expenses incurred for the said business are deemed to have been allowed and no addition to such income can be made by way of a disallowance under section 14 A on account

DAM CAPITAL ADVISORS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer pricing adjustment of provision of expenses 1,28,75,981 4. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.9,71,70,100/-. The CIT(A), on further appeal, gave marginal relief to the assessee with regard to the above disallowances/additions. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

RED HAT INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. AADL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

4,15,134 4.1.5 Entity characterization Based on the above, Red Hat India can be classified as a limited risk distributor in respect of the subscriptions sold to the clients.” 6.4 Based on the above, we shall undertake the compatibility of the companies sought for inclusion/exclusion by the assessee. 7. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that, Innovana Thinkable

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(4) EARLIER WITH ACIT(LTU) 1, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.563/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)\nAditya BirlaNuvo Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 1(4)\n(Since Amalgamated with\nGrasim Industries Limited)\nA2 Aditya Birla Centre, S. K.\nAhire Marg, Worli, Mumbai\nEarlier with Asst. CIT(LTU) 1\nRoom No. 902, Old CGO\nBuilding, 9th Floor, M. K. Road,\nMumbai-400 020\nPAN/GIR No.AAACI1747H\n(Appellant) .. (Respondent)\nITA No.1885/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)

4 Delhi 546.\nii.\nNalini Mahajan vs. Director of Income Tax [2002] 257 ITR 123 (Delhi).\niii.\nShinhan Bank vs. DDIT (IT) [2022] 139 Taxmann.com 563 (Mum-Trib).\n19. Proceeding further, he submitted, even in case of Jindal Power and Steel (Supra)\nthe Hon‟ble Supreme Court has acknowledged that Section 80A(6) will have to be taken\ninto consideration