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)

163. 013. With respect to the disallowance under section 14 A of the act the learned dispute resolution panel noted that the learned assessing officer has correctly disallowed invoking the provisions of section 14 A of the act. With respect to the quantum of disallowance, the assessee has disallowed a sum of ₹ 7,530,532/– under section

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY C/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

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

163. Arm's length service suppliers would usually expect to recover their costs plus an element of profit. However, in determining an Arm's Length charge for service, one must also take into account the economic alternatives available to the recipient of the service. Often, the price the recipient is willing to pay for the service does not exceed

FIREFLY MARKET RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONA E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

163,877 (comprising of support services availed of INR 6,751,261 and allocation of costs of INR 7,412,616) under Chapter X of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under other provisions of the Act Legal 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO exceeded his jurisdiction

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT 3(1) (1) ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ITO/NFAC-DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Ups Express Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Dcit-3(1)(1) Express Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 6-A, Shyam Off Jvlr, Majas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Village, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400060 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu4322N Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023

163. Arm's length service suppliers would usually expect to recover their costs plus an element of profit. However, in determining an Arm's Length charge for service, one must also take into account the economic alternatives available to the recipient of the service. Often, the price the recipient is willing to pay for the service does not exceed

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)

transferred falls below the threshold monetary limit for referring\nthe SDT to the TPO for determination of ALP, in case the value of goods/services is\nmore than threshold limit, which falls within the ambit of SDT, clause-(ii) of explanation\nu/s. Section 80IA(8) would apply.\n20. In this context, he drew my attention to explanatory memorandum to the Finance

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

163 (SC) wherein the issue was\nwhether reduction of face value of the shares will be subject to\nlevy of capital gains, whether reduction of the face value result in\nextinguishment of assessee's right and is there any transfer\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(47). The case of the assessee in\nthat case was, since reduction of face

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 ()

Section 144C (10) and 144C (13) of the Act, thereby, rendering the assessment proceeding vitiated and invalid in law. 2. Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing Adjustment-INR 25,29,89,726 Adjustment relating to international transaction pertaining to payment of royalty and service fee (subscription segment)-INR 14,35,88,058 2.1 Without prejudice, the Ld. AO [along with

TATA CONSULTANCE SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

163,159 28,468 17.45% Wipro Ltd. 41,210 32,788 8,422 25.69% TCS India 74,857 53,940 20,917 38.78% On the basis of the above comparison carried out, the assessee has considered its transactions to be at ALP. 7. During the course of transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer was of the firm belief

DY CIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NOVATEUR ELECTRICALS AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 43(6)(c), it relates to acquisition of a subsidiary company by its holding company or vice versa and for the transaction of amalgamation. It does not deal with transaction of slump sale. Thus, the provisions referred by the authorities below are misplaced for the impugned transaction of slump sale undertaken by the assessee which gave rise

NOVATEUR ELECTRICAL AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 43(6)(c), it relates to acquisition of a subsidiary company by its holding company or vice versa and for the transaction of amalgamation. It does not deal with transaction of slump sale. Thus, the provisions referred by the authorities below are misplaced for the impugned transaction of slump sale undertaken by the assessee which gave rise

ACIT (CIR.) - 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHANDAR POWER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

price for supply of electricity by assessee to the group companies comprises of two components viz Annual fixed charges and Variable charges. The Annual fixed charges consist of the interest on debt, return on equity, depreciation on the assets and operation and maintenance cost which are apportioned among the customers in proportion to the power generation capacity allocated to them

UBS AG,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2261 & 5122/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14) Ubs Ag Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Level 3, 2 North Avenue Income Tax (It)-4(3)(1) Maker Maxity, Bandra Air India Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra Nariman Point East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu5003G Appellant .. Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transaction of fees receipt for marketing of fixed income products. As a result, grounds No. 1 – 3 raised by the assessee are allowed.” 9. Following the decision of the ITAT on the similar issue and identical facts as supra we consider that issue contested is squarely covered, therefore, ground

UBS AG,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2261 & 5122/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14) Ubs Ag Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Level 3, 2 North Avenue Income Tax (It)-4(3)(1) Maker Maxity, Bandra Air India Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra Nariman Point East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu5003G Appellant .. Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transaction of fees receipt for marketing of fixed income products. As a result, grounds No. 1 – 3 raised by the assessee are allowed.” 9. Following the decision of the ITAT on the similar issue and identical facts as supra we consider that issue contested is squarely covered, therefore, ground

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

section 44C, the deduction of head office expenses is allowed in the following manner:  An amount equal to 5 per cent of adjusted total income; or  Amount of so much of the expenditure in the nature of head office expenditure incurred by the Assessee as is attributable to the business or profession of the Assessee in India whichever

DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. HONGKONG & SANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

section 44C, the deduction of head office expenses is allowed in the following manner:  An amount equal to 5 per cent of adjusted total income; or  Amount of so much of the expenditure in the nature of head office expenditure incurred by the Assessee as is attributable to the business or profession of the Assessee in India whichever

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 44C, the deduction of head office expenses is allowed in the following manner:  An amount equal to 5 per cent of adjusted total income; or  Amount of so much of the expenditure in the nature of head office expenditure incurred by the Assessee as is attributable to the business or profession of the Assessee in India whichever

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 44C, the deduction of head office expenses is allowed in the following manner:  An amount equal to 5 per cent of adjusted total income; or  Amount of so much of the expenditure in the nature of head office expenditure incurred by the Assessee as is attributable to the business or profession of the Assessee in India whichever

DCIT 3(4), MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

163,159 28,468 17.45%\nWipro Ltd. 41,210 32,788 8,422 25.69%\nTCS India 74,857 53,940 20,917 38.78%\nOn the basis of the above comparison carried out, the assessee has considered\nits transactions to be at ALP.\n\n7. During the course of transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the Transfer\nPricing Officer was of the firm

RALLIS INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transfer pricing perspective.\n7.1.\nThe contentions and submissions of the assessee did not find any\nfavour with the TPO who was of the firm belief that if the assessee had\nsold the goods directly to AAL, it would have sold it at a value of\nRs.1,83,13,86,163/- whereas, the assessee has sold the goods through