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

ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

transfer pricing provisions do not apply. This was held by the coordinate benches in assessee‟s own case for earlier years and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A who followed the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case. Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal of learned

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 ()

price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of interest into fixed rate of interest. interest into fixed rate of interest. 8.10 In view of above n view of above, we feel

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

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

135 days (from 17/11/2016 to 31/03/2017) and proposed transfer pricing addition of INR 4,78,60,001/- on account of notional interest. 26.2. In the Objections filed by the Appellant before DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/06/2021 wherein the above transfer pricing addition of INR 4,78,60,001/- was incorporated, the DRP granted relief to the Appellant

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment

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

NIPRO CORPORATION,JAPAN,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Nipro Corporation, Japan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Nipro India Corporation Pvt. Income Tax , Ltd. International Taxation, Plot No.3-1, Circle 3(3)(1) Room No.1630, 16 Th Floor, Air Midc, Kesurdi, Khandala, Tal, Khandala, Satara, India Building, Mumbai-412802 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecn4534F

Transfer Pricing Officer) under Section 92CA[3] of the Act dated 31st December, 2022, and direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, (the learned DRP) dated 29th April, 2022, were incorporated. 02. Assessee is aggrieved and has raised following grounds of appeal:- “Issue no. 1-Debt/Corporate guarantee fees taxed in India 1. The learned DCIT

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO,NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI/LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER IS ASSTT, CIT- CC-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Mahindra & Mahindra Income Tax Officer, National E- Limited Assessment Centre, Delhi Corporate Taxation, Local Jurisdictional Assessing P.K.Kurne Chowk, Vs. Worli, Officer Mumbai-400 018 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3025E Assessee By : Shri H.P. Mahajani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed an order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on 1st November, 2019, wherein the total adjustment to the Arms Length Price was proposed to ₹32,06,92,286/-. The learned Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C (1) of the Act on 28th December, 2019, wherein the total

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

pricing study report held its transaction with the Indian entities to be at arms length. 2.2 The Ld.TPO dissatisfied with the documentation maintained by the assessee, made ad hoc adjustment towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction at 10% in the hands of the assessee. 2.3 On receipt of the order passed under

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

pricing study report held its transaction with the Indian entities to be at arms length. 2.2 The Ld.TPO dissatisfied with the documentation maintained by the assessee, made ad hoc adjustment towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction at 10% in the hands of the assessee. 2.3 On receipt of the order passed under

DEUTSCHE INDIA PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS 'DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing adjustment. Accordingly, in view of the above, grounds no.1 and 2 raised in assessee’s appeal are dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The issue arising in Corporate Tax grounds no.(a) and (b), raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the denial of deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act on Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) expenses

M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Transfer Pricing\nregulations do not apply to Assessee to the extent of operations carried out through\noperating qualifying ships, where the income is taxed under the Tonnage Tax scheme.\nAccordingly, TP additions for Rs.51,46,215/- being interest on lease loan from\nqualifying assets being a Ship i.e. MV Maithili and MV Maanika to the AE M/s Essar Shipping DMCC

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 1 (3)92), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

135/- pertaining to discount on Employee Stock pertaining to discount on Employee Stock Option Plan (being the difference of market price at the time Option Plan (being the difference of market price at the time Option Plan (being the difference of market price at the time of grant of option and exercise price) claimed over the of grant of option

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITEIS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144B", "144C(5)", "253(1)", "92CA", "40A(7)", "37(1)", "43B", "43B(f)", "36(1)(va)", "80G", "80G(1)(ii)", "80G(2)(iiihk)", "80G(2)(iiihl)", "115P", "234C", "234B", "270A", "139(1)", "135 of the Companies Act, 2013", "Chapter VIA" ], "issues": "The primary issues involved were transfer pricing