VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

156 ITD 847 (Del-Trib) has held that deduction for telecommunication services is allowable in respect of “profits of eligible business and not restricted to profits derived from eligible business as mentioned in section 80IA of the Act.\" Thus, the provisions of sub-section (2A) of Section 80IA of the Act are much wider in scope as compared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

Section 37 of the Act and genuineness of the expenditure?\"\"\nBrief facts of the case are as under:\n3. The assessee, an Indian company, and is a part of U.T. Worldwide Group U.K. It is submitted that the assessee belongs to a group that is world leader in international flight forwarding business. The assessee is engaged in the business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

Section 37 of the Act and\ngenuneness of the expenditure?\"\nBrief facts of the case are as under:\n3. The assessee, an Indian company, and is a part of U.T.\nWorldwide Group U.K. It is submitted that the assessee belongs\nto a group that is world leader in international flight forwarding\nbusiness. The assessee is engaged in the business

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 ()

Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from

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

156 ITD 847 (Del-Trib) has held that deduction for\ntelecommunication services is allowable in respect of “profits of\neligible business and not restricted to profits derived from eligible\nbusiness as mentioned in section 80IA of the Act.\"\nThus, the provisions of sub-section (2A) of Section 80IA of the\nAct are much wider in scope as compared

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

156 ITD 847 (Del-Trib) has held that deduction for\ntelecommunication services is allowable in respect of “profits of\neligible business and not restricted to profits derived from eligible\nbusiness as mentioned in section 80IA of the Act.\"\nThus, the provisions of sub-section (2A) of Section 80IA of the\nAct are much wider in scope as compared

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. S.S ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing order and notice under Section 156 of the Act was passed in the name of non-existing company

S.S. ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing order and notice under Section 156 of the Act was passed in the name of non-existing company

SS ORAL HYGEINE PRODUCTS P.LTD (NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3) ( NOW ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing order and notice under Section 156 of the Act was passed in the name of non-existing company

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

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

section 37(1) and should not\nbe restricted under section 44C of the Act. Respectfully following\nthe decision of coordinate bench and judicial pronouncements\nrelied upon by the assessee, we are in agreement with the\ncontentions of assessee and ground raised by the assessee is\nallowed.\"\nPage No. | 53\n54. Further, the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case

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

156", "Section 115JAA", "Section 90", "Section 244A", "Rule 10B(1)", "Rule 10B(3)", "Section 92C(2)"], "issues": "Whether the assessee is entitled to a working capital adjustment in its transfer pricing

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

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

section\n44C of the Act. Following the decision of his predecessor-\nin-office, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the\ndisallowance by holding that the expenditure is allowable\nunder section 37(1) of the Act without imposing\nrestrictions contained under section 44C of the Act.\n19. We have considered rival submissions and perused\nmaterial on record. Learned Counsels appearing for the\nparties

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

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

section 44C\nof the Act deals with the allowability of the head office\nadministrative expenses. Accordingly, it was submitted\nthat the expenses incurred by the assessee are out of the\nscope of provision of section 44C as these expenses are\nnot in the nature of general administrative expenses but\nare solely and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the\noperations

DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment and declined to\ngrant any relief in relation to disallowances made in Section\n40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of Global Overhead Charges of\nINR.1,31,15,947/- and payments of INR.10,27,625/- to Team\nLease. Further, the CIT(A) also enhance the disallowance under\nSection

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

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

section 44C of the Act, hence, cannot\nbe claimed as deduction separately. Being aggrieved with\nPage No. 54\nthe aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer, assessee\npreferred appeal before the first appellate authority.\n18. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering\nthe submissions of the assessee in the context of facts\nand materials on record found that identical disallowance\nmade

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)

transfer pricing officer noted that there are five vessels under construction and outstanding amount on which financial guarantees given is ₹ 659 crores. Therefore he held that the as the arm‟s-length price in case of financial guarantee is considered at 3%, the performance guarantee should also be benchmarked at the rate of 3%. Accordingly, he made an upward revision

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)

transfer pricing officer noted that there are five vessels under construction and outstanding amount on which financial guarantees given is ₹ 659 crores. Therefore he held that the as the arm‟s-length price in case of financial guarantee is considered at 3%, the performance guarantee should also be benchmarked at the rate of 3%. Accordingly, he made an upward revision

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustment and declined to grant any relief in relation to disallowances made in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of Global Overhead Charges of INR.1,31,15,947/- and payments of INR.10,27,625/- to Team Lease. Further, the CIT(A) also enhance the disallowance under Section

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Transfer" as defined under section 2(47) of the Act for the purposes of determination of Capital Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that