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

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

155 i.e., 30 percent of such estimated\nexpenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. AO-NaFAC\nfailed to appreciate that complete documents (including Form\n26A obtained from vendor was provided) and erred in not\nfollowing the directions of the Honorable DRP.\nThe Appellant prays that the said disallowance is erroneous,\nunwarranted and hence, be deleted

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

155/- pertaining to Brand Royalty\npayment made to Vodafone Ireland Marketing Limited\nfor obtaining the right to use of Vodafone trademark\nand trade name\n(j)\nGround No. 7.11 to 7.13: Transfer Pricing Adjustment\nof INR 1,31,43,772/- pertaining to payment for\ntechnology support charges\n(k)\nGround No. 7.14: Transfer Pricing Adjustment

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

155/- pertaining to Brand Royalty\npayment made to Vodafone Ireland Marketing Limited\nfor obtaining the right to use of Vodafone trademark\nand trade name\n(j)\nGround No. 7.11 to 7.13: Transfer Pricing Adjustment\nof INR 1,31,43,772/- pertaining to payment for\ntechnology support charges\n(k)\nGround No. 7.14: Transfer Pricing Adjustment

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

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

155,06 and INR 10,013.45 respectively. In doing so, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO/Ld, DRP erred in: a) Ignoring the existence of comparable transactions of purchase of equity shares from third parties which are akin to the transaction of the Appellant for determination of ALP b) Disregarding the valuation report issued by independent valuation expert for valuation of equity shares

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

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

155 taxmann.com 461 categorically dealt and analysed the phrase “or” used between two sub- clauses of Explanation to Section 80IA(8). For the sake of ready reference para 14-16 are reproduced hereunder:- “14. The entire case of the department is that, since it is SDT in term of Section 80I (8), therefore, the market value

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer of power. The TPO\nalso held that the assessee has not made any adjustment towards the distribution\ncost to make the prices comparable and thus the CUP data used by the assessee is\ndefective. The TPO proceeded to adopt the power purchase cost charged by\nGujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (GUVNL) while purchasing power from coal based\nthermal power

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

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

Section 256(1) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961:\nPage No. | 21\n\"Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the\ncase the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the\nbuilding expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- are not liable to be\ntaken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving\nat the real income of the assessee

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

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

Section 256(1) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961:\n\"Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the\ncase the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the\nbuilding expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- are not liable to be\ntaken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving\nat the real income of the assessee for the assessment

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

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

Section 256(1) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961:\n\"Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the\ncase the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the\nbuilding expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- are not liable to be\ntaken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving\nat the real income of the assessee for the assessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , 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, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, 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)

15. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the appellant‟s contention that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises was rupees nil 16. The AO/TPO erred in holding that the arm‟s-length price of the performance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

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

15. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the appellant‟s contention that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises was rupees nil 16. The AO/TPO erred in holding that the arm‟s-length price of the performance

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

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

15. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the appellant‟s contention that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises was rupees nil 16. The AO/TPO erred in holding that the arm‟s-length price of the performance

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

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

15. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the appellant‟s contention that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises was rupees nil 16. The AO/TPO erred in holding that the arm‟s-length price of the performance

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

155,972. Assessee did not charge any guarantee fee. However during the course of transfer pricing assessment, assessee submitted that Average rate of bank guarantee charges of 6 different banks is 0.91%. The above bank guarantee commission rate was further adjusted that had the assessee not given the guarantee to its associated enterprises, the AE who have been granted

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

155,972. Assessee did not charge any guarantee fee. However during the course of transfer pricing assessment, assessee submitted that Average rate of bank guarantee charges of 6 different banks is 0.91%. The above bank guarantee commission rate was further adjusted that had the assessee not given the guarantee to its associated enterprises, the AE who have been granted

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

155,972. Assessee did not charge any guarantee fee. However during the course of transfer pricing assessment, assessee submitted that Average rate of bank guarantee charges of 6 different banks is 0.91%. The above bank guarantee commission rate was further adjusted that had the assessee not given the guarantee to its associated enterprises, the AE who have been granted

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

155,972. Assessee did not charge any guarantee fee. However during the course of transfer pricing assessment, assessee submitted that Average rate of bank guarantee charges of 6 different banks is 0.91%. The above bank guarantee commission rate was further adjusted that had the assessee not given the guarantee to its associated enterprises, the AE who have been granted

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

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

Section 256(1) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961:\nPage No. 21\n\"Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the\ncase the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the\nbuilding expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- are not liable to be\ntaken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving\nat the real income of the assessee