TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 14 -- -- -- -- -- 194C(2) 14. Deduction u/s.10AA on 15 13 14 -- -- -- interest income during assessment 15. Subscription fees u/s. 16 16 13 -- -- -- 40(a)(ia) 16. Warranty income of 18 -- -- -- -- -- CMC already offered 17. Year end provisions u/s. -- 14 11 -- -- -- 37(1) 18. 80G vis-a-vis CSR -- 18 15 -- -- -- expenses 19. Gratuity expenses -- 19 16 -- -- -- debited

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

194C(2) shall apply in this case?\"\n15. \"Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 10AA in\nrespect of interest Income which was claimed during the course of assessment\nproceedings, without filing revised return of income?\"\n16. \"Whether, on facts

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE LD. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ ITO, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

section 194C of the act. With respect to the transfer pricing adjustment, assessee furnished additional evidences before the DRP. The remand

ACIT (OSD)-2(2), MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1163/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Acit(Osd)(Tds)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7Th Floor, K. 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 12.03.2021 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Holding That, The Payments Made By The Assessee To Several Vendors In Relation To Its Procurements From Them, Consisting Of Appeals/Clothes/Footwear/Goods Manufactured By These Vendors, Were Not In The Nature Of “Works Contract” But “Purchase Of Goods” & That, Therefore, The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Invoked By The Assessing Officer In Relation Thereto, Were Not Applicable.

section 194C are squarely applicable on the said transactions in which the assessee would like to camouflage the same with the purchases.” 9. After considering the submissions and the rejoinder put forth by the assessee in light of the AO’s order as well his remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) held that, the assessee had purchased

DCIT (OSD) (TDS) -2 (2) , MUMBAI vs. SHOPPPERS STOP LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1783/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Acit (Osd) Tds 2(2), M/S Shoppers Stop Limited Room No 706, 7Th Fl.., K.G Mittal 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Malad Link Road, Charni Road (W), Minidspace, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai-400064 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri Manan Mathuriya Revenue By: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

section 194C are squarely applicable on the said transactions in which the assessee would like to camouflage the same with the purchases.” ITA.NO. 1783/MUM/2021 AY. 2017-18 Shoppers Stop Ltd, Mumbai 9. After considering the submissions and the rejoinder put forth by the assessee in light of the AO’s order as well his remand report

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

transfer pricing adjustment. In addition\nthe\nAssessing\nOfficer\nalso\nproposed\nother\nadditions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act.\n3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft\nAssessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP\ndisposed off the objections granting partial relief to the\nAssessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer\npassed

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

transfer pricing adjustment. In addition\nthe Assessing Officer also proposed other\nadditions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act.\n3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft\nAssessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP\ndisposed off the objections granting partial relief to the\nAssessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer\npassed

STAR INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Cit 16(1) Room No.467, 4Th Floor Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Mumbai Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1335Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer. 59. We noted that the channel companies, i.e. STEL, SAML, SAR, which were owners of various channel at the time of merger, merged with SIPL who then carried on broadcasting business under its own umbrella. The STAR brand, however, continued with STAR Ltd. Thus, the STAR brand which was earlier utilized by the channel companies as part

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

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

194C", "197", "12(4)(b) of DTAA", "Article 7 of DTAA", "Article 5 of DTAA", "Article 12 of DTAA", "92C(2)", "9(1)(vii)", "194J", "40(a)(ii)" ], "issues": "Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A and Section 40(a)(ia), and transfer pricing

M/S CEAT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

section 201(1) of the Act and raised\nthe demand of Rs.1,25,00,396/- .\n8. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said demand\nbefore the Ld. Commissioner and raised various issues/grounds.\n9. The Ld. Commissioner considering the peculiar facts and\ncircumstances in totality, ultimately confirmed the decision of the\nAO in raising the demand of Rs.1

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

194C(2) shall apply in this case?\"\n15. \"Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 10AA in\nrespect of interest Income which was claimed during the course of assessment\nproceedings, without filing revised return of income?\"\n16. \"Whether, on facts

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

section 201(1) of the Act and raised\nthe demand of Rs.1,25,00,396/- .\n8. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said demand\nbefore the Ld. Commissioner and raised various issues/grounds.\n9. The Ld. Commissioner considering the peculiar facts and\ncircumstances in totality, ultimately confirmed the decision of the\nAO in raising the demand of Rs.1

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing study: •Ask Me Info Ltd. •MCS Ltd. •CMC Ltd. •C.S. Software Enterprise Ltd •Mphasis BFL, Ltd. •Tata Share Registry Ltd. •HCL Technologies Ltd. •Datamatics Technologies Ltd. 2.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in wrongfully including the following comparable companies in the final set of comparables: •Apes

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 pricing study: •Ask Me Info Ltd. •MCS Ltd. •CMC Ltd. •C.S. Software Enterprise Ltd •Mphasis BFL, Ltd. •Tata Share Registry Ltd. •HCL Technologies Ltd. •Datamatics Technologies Ltd. 2.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in wrongfully including the following comparable companies in the final set of comparables: •Apes

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) 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 pricing study: •Ask Me Info Ltd. •MCS Ltd. •CMC Ltd. •C.S. Software Enterprise Ltd •Mphasis BFL, Ltd. •Tata Share Registry Ltd. •HCL Technologies Ltd. •Datamatics Technologies Ltd. 2.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in wrongfully including the following comparable companies in the final set of comparables: •Apes

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

section 201(1) of the Act and raised\nthe demand of Rs.1,25,00,396/- .\n8. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said demand\nbefore the Ld. Commissioner and raised various issues/grounds.\n9. The Ld. Commissioner considering the peculiar facts and\ncircumstances in totality, ultimately confirmed the decision of the\nAO in raising the demand of Rs.1

M/S CEAT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OSD TDS CIRLCE 1(1), MUMBAI

section 201(1) of the Act and raised\nthe demand of Rs.1,25,00,396/- .\n8. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said demand\nbefore the Ld. Commissioner and raised various issues/grounds.\n9. The Ld. Commissioner considering the peculiar facts and\ncircumstances in totality, ultimately confirmed the decision of the\nAO in raising the demand of Rs.1