M/S EDELWISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Edelweiss Rural & Acit Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Cgo Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakcs 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement ___/03/2023 Order

transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a than the market price and the transaction is a bonafide one, bonafide one, the taxing authority cannot take into account the market price the taxing authority cannot take into account the market price the taxing authority cannot take into account

RED HAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

145/- TNMM services of Inc., USA software development 4 Provision of IT Red Hat 83,76,55,778/- TNMM enabled Services Inc., USA 5 Provision of IT Red Hat 20,94,13,945/- TNMM enabled Services Limited, Ireland 4. The learned TPO, vide order dated 31 October 2019 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act, proposed an aggregate transfer

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment of ₹99,14,138/- against adjustment of ld TPO of Rs 1,98,25,276/-. 011. Based on this, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th July, 2022 determining the total income of the assessee as per normal computation of income at ₹145

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment of ₹99,14,138/- against adjustment of ld TPO of Rs 1,98,25,276/-. 011. Based on this, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th July, 2022 determining the total income of the assessee as per normal computation of income at ₹145

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

Section 43B of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 01/04/1988. The First Proviso made it clear that Section 43B shall not apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee in the next accounting year if it is paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

145 taxmann.com 214) (Bangalore - Trib.), IMS Health Analytics Services Private Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITA No.1549/Bang/2019), and CWT v. Spencer and Co. Ltd. (88 ITR 429) (SC). (c) Premium on debenture is an allowable expenditure. Section 2(28A) of the Act defines ‘interest’ as under: “„interest‟ means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

145 taxmann.com 214) (Bangalore - Trib.), IMS Health Analytics Services Private Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITA No.1549/Bang/2019), and CWT v. Spencer and Co. Ltd. (88 ITR 429) (SC). (c) Premium on debenture is an allowable expenditure. Section 2(28A) of the Act defines ‘interest’ as under: “„interest‟ means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt

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

DY.CIT -5(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

145/- under Section 14A of the Act. Similar adjustment was also made in book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. 010. Accordingly, the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act dated 26th February, 2018, was passed determining the total income of the assessee at ₹276,39,20,405/- as per normal computation

KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

145/- under Section 14A of the Act. Similar adjustment was also made in book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. 010. Accordingly, the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act dated 26th February, 2018, was passed determining the total income of the assessee at ₹276,39,20,405/- as per normal computation

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Section\n43B shall not apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by\nthe assessee in the next accounting year if it is paid on or before\nthe due date for furnishing the return of income in respect of the\nprevious year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred\nand the evidence of such payment

VVF (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

145/- on account of corporate guarantee provided to AE is not in accordance with law. 5. That the DRP/NFAC/AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in making the upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,13,60,120/- on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables from AEs is not in accordance with law. 5.1.That the DRP/AO/NFAC/TPO erred on facts

OMNIACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

3 Omniactive Health Technologies Limited 1:0 Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 15,93.35.145 to the international transaction relating to export of goods 11 The learned Assessing Officer ("AO")/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in making an upward adjustment of INR 15,93,35,145/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that

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:

145 444,742 Tata Africa Holdings (Tanzania) Ltd 25 10,430,450 417,218 Tata Zambia (Senegal) 15 6,569,062 437,937 Tata Uganda Ltd. 2 874,458 437,229 Tata Zambia Ltd. 6 2,501,716 416,953 Total 395 161,517,126 408,904 Average Sales Price per unit. 408,904 Comparable transaction(Non-AEs) Compotec

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting