BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section 115- JB of the Act cannot be applied and consequently, tax on book profit (MAT) are not applicable to such banks. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (cited supra), Ground No.6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is allowed. 42. In view of our finding

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section 115- JB of the Act cannot be applied and consequently, tax on book profit (MAT) are not applicable to such banks. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (cited supra), Ground No.6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is allowed. 42. In view of our finding

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

195 arase which the assessee failed to discharge?" 13. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) erred in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 10AA in respect of interest income which was claimed during the course of assessment proceedings, without filing revived return of income?" 14. "Whether on facts

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

price which is one of the two recognized methods of\nvaluation of the closing stock.\n7.5 It cannot be the effect of the RBI guidelines that the total income for the\npurpose of Income Tax has to be computed in accordance with the enjoinment\nof these guidelines. These are only meant as guiding factors to determine the\ncommercial profit

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

Pricing Officer were not on the basis of any detailed search process.\nAt least, no such analysis is either forthcoming from the order of the Transfer\nPricing Officer or could be brought to our notice by learned Departmental\nRepresentative. On the contrary, on a thorough and careful reading of the\nimpugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer further held that total assets of the assessee shows that the creditworthiness of the assessee is much higher than that of the Associated Enterprises and therefore, interest savings of 1.27% should be shared between parties in the ratio of 80:20 and accordingly, he proposed guarantee commission at the rate of 1%. xi. Ld AO computed amount

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer further held that total assets of the assessee shows that the creditworthiness of the assessee is much higher than that of the Associated Enterprises and therefore, interest savings of 1.27% should be shared between parties in the ratio of 80:20 and accordingly, he proposed guarantee commission at the rate of 1%. xi. Ld AO computed amount

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Pricing adjustments. These grounds are taken up along with the grounds in revenue's appeal which are adjudicated in the later part of this order. Ground Nos.10 and 11 are general not warranting any separate adjudication. I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 – Revenue's Appeal State taxes paid in overseas countries – Ground 1 35. In the computation of income of the assessee, the Assessing

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Pricing adjustments. These grounds are taken up along with the grounds in revenue's appeal which are adjudicated in the later part of this order. Ground Nos.10 and 11 are general not warranting any separate adjudication. I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 – Revenue's Appeal State taxes paid in overseas countries – Ground 1 35. In the computation of income of the assessee, the Assessing

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,71,73,770. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) M/s. HSBC Asset Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.5830/Mum./2013 ITA no.5835/Mum./2013 vide impugned order partially upheld the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO/AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,71,73,770. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) M/s. HSBC Asset Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.5830/Mum./2013 ITA no.5835/Mum./2013 vide impugned order partially upheld the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO/AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

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

Transfer Pricing\nadjustment. He also excludes payments made by AEs to assessee\nas pass-through cost.\ne. Ld. CIT(A) in AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13,\n2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 has been holding that the method\nadopted by AO is incorrect\nf. Appropriate Profit Level Indicator (PLI) decided

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

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

195 of the Act would not be\nattracted and there being no failure to deduct tax at\nsource from the said payment of interest made by the PE,\nthe question of disallowance of the said interest by\ninvoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act does\nnot arise. Accordingly we answer question No.1 referred\nto this Special

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

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

195 of the Act would not be\nattracted and there being no failure to deduct tax at\nsource from the said payment of interest made by the PE,\nthe question of disallowance of the said interest by\ninvoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act does\nnot arise. Accordingly we answer question No.1 referred\nto this Special

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