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

194H or under section 194C of the act. With respect to the transfer pricing adjustment, assessee furnished additional evidences before

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Transfer Pricing Officer accepts that some services have been rendered, however, he has made a general observation that such services do not have any value and has proceeded to determine the arm's length price on a purely on ad–hoc basis. Whereas, the reading of the AAR ruling, referred to above, clearly demonstrate that highly specialized services, in fact

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURA VALUE RETAIL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

transfer is a Two-Part Process and can be briefly explained as under:- Processing a payment card transaction involves two stages; > Authorization, where an electronic request is sent through various parties to either approve or decline the transaction; and Clearing and Settlement, where all parties settle their accounts and get paid. > Authorization: 1. Cardholder presents payment card as payment

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

transfer-pricing officer i.e. at the rate of 0.20% i.e. 0.04% of the amount of letter of comfort is chargeable. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 90,490/–. 021. We find that identical issue arose in case of the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10 wherein the coordinate bench on identical facts and circumstances in ITA number

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

transfer pricing adjustments. In view of our findings in paragraph 8-9 above, the same are disposed off as being infructuous since the order passed by the TPO has been held to be barred by limitation. Ground No. 6 32. “6 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon‟ble DRP erred in directing

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

transfer pricing adjustments. In view of our findings in paragraph 8-9 above, the same are disposed off as being infructuous since the order passed by the TPO has been held to be barred by limitation. Ground No. 6 32. “6 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon‟ble DRP erred in directing

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

transfer pricing adjustments. In view of our findings in paragraph 7-8 above, the same are disposed off as being infructuous since the order passed by the TPO has been held to be barred by limitation. Ground No. 3 36. “3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon‟ble DRP erred in directing

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

transfer pricing adjustments. In view of our findings in paragraph 7-8 above, the same are disposed off as being infructuous since the order passed by the TPO has been held to be barred by limitation. Ground No. 3 36. “3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon‟ble DRP erred in directing

TATA SKY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.(TDS) RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal stands

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

price at which it is sold to the distributors and the MRP upto which they are permitted to sell, is cogent and is sustainable view. As noted hereinabove the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that when the assessee had introduced sales promotion scheme for distributors to boost sale

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD. WHICH STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS IDEA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE- 5 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

price at which these were transferred to the Pre-paid Distributors. The Assessing Officer and the DRP were of the view that the upfront discount given by the Appellant to the Pre-paid Distributor was in the nature of ‘commission’ liable to withholding of tax at source under section 194H

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

194H of\nthe Act on the discount extended by the Appellant to distributors of prepaid SIM\ncards/talktime.\n5. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO/DRP has erred in not holding that no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act since the Appellant is of a bonafide

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

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

price at which these were transferred to the Pre-paid Distributors. 5.2. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2016, the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of the upfront discount extended to the Pre-paid Distributors. The Assessing Officer treated the arrangement between the Appellant and Pre-paid Distributors as a ‘Principal

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

section 194H of the Act and hence there cannot be any obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source thereon and consequentially there cannot be any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. II raised by the assessee is allowed. The Ground No. I raised by the assessee is only supporting

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

section 194H would count as income for the agents themselves. It is at this point that settlement is made fully and finally, in line with clause 7.2 of the PSA. 48. The only remaining objection from the Assessees concerns Section 216 of the Contract Act. To appropriately appreciate the scope of the provision, a combined reading of both Sections

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

transfer pricing adjustment and certain other corporate additions and disallowances. 2.2 Since the assessee did not opt for adjudication by the Dispute Resolution Panel and intended to pursue the appellate remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 27.05.2022 under section 143(3) read with section 144C

DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNELS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in both the years are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

price paid by the distributors. The such difference is works out to Rs.51,67,60,486/-. Therefore, the deductor is treated as deemed defaulter u/s,201(1) of the I.T. Act to the above extent and also liable to charge interest u/s.201(1A) of the I.T. Act. 4. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer carried

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 9 (1)(2), MUMBAI

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

194H of the Act. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also approved the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the limited issue before us is the validity of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, we decline to entertain the fresh plea of learned Departmental Representative. The decisions cited by the learned Departmental Representative

MAHINDRA TRUCKS AND BUSES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

Transfer Pricing-3(2), Mumbai by order under section 92CA(3) of The Act dated 31st October, 2016, was incorporated. The draft order was objected before Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (DRP), who passed direction on 27th September, 2017 and consequently the impugned assessment order was passed wherein the income of the assessee was determined