DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

prices or value generated is also on higher side in the first year in order to cover up the expenses mentioned above. The assessee submitted that these commission or agency charges also included out of pocket expenses which is the responsibility of the overseas agents to be incurred by them. It was also submitted that these M/s. Shamrock Pharmachemi Pvt.Ltd

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

price cannot be considered as “Royalty” under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Once that is so, then it is very difficult to hold that the assessee should have deducted TDS on such payment when there was no clear cut law that such a payment would be taxable in India. Here, the maxim

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

price cannot be considered as “Royalty” under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Once that is so, then it is very difficult to hold that the assessee should have deducted TDS on such payment when there was no clear cut law that such a payment would be taxable in India. Here, the maxim

SULZER PUMPS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE-15 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

1,176,154,952/–. 09. The draft assessment order was challenged by filing objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel who passed direction on 25th September, 2019. The learned dispute resolution panel upheld the transfer Sulzes Pumps I Pvt. ltd.;AY 15-16 pricing adjustment proposed by the learned transfer- pricing officer of ₹ 181,034,113/– based on the direction

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at ` 5,68,97,341. 144. The assessee is engaged in the business of broadcasting and telecasting of television channels. Accordingly, it incurs up–linking charges in connection with its broadcasting business. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee paid ` 5,68,97,341, towards up–linking fees to Television Eighteen India

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹5,82,51,214/- in view of determination of Arm's Length Price of international transaction under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by order dated 31st October, 2018, wherein on the international transaction of buy ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 back of shares of ₹65,62,50,000/- was upwardly revised

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92B which states that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include…….. (c) capital financing, including any type of long -term or short -term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92B which states that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include…….. (c) capital financing, including any type of long -term or short -term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising

DCIT (IT) - 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS CAPITAL INVESTMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal, as also the CO, are dismissed

Section 195. What are termed as grounds of appeal are arguments in support of this core grievance. 4. The issue in appeal lies in a very narrow compass of facts. On 11th July 2008, WNS Capital Investments Ltd Mauritius- the assessee before us and a company which is owned by WNS Mauritius which, in turn, is owned by the ultimate

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer should be restored. 43. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Insofar as the contention of learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee that provision of guarantee is not an international transaction as per section 92B of the Act, we are unable

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

1)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Rajan R. Vora a/w Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue by : Shri Anand Mohan Date of Hearing – 20.11.2019 Date of Order – 18.02.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. These cross appeals arise out of assessment order dated 28th January 2016, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income

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

DDIT (IT) 4(2),MUMBAI vs. ABU DHABI SHIP BLDG PJSC, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

195(2) of the Act, requesting for approval for non–deduction of tax at source on payment to be made to Abu Dhabi Ship Building PJSC for the construction of the ISVs. In the said application, it was stated by 3 M/s. Abu Dhabi Ship Building PJSC the payer ONGC that no tax is required to be deducted

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

195,479 Add: As per TPO's order 83,04,51,395 Less: Derivative Sales Credit 7,484,175 Less: Deduction under section 7,35,39,865 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act Less: Deduction under section 44C 7,35,39,865 of the Act TOTAL TAXABLE 139,60,51,319 INCOME Rounded

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

195(2) provided other conditions of section 263 were also fulfilled.’ The learned DR also relied upon in the case of CIT Vs. Sri Mahasastha Pictures, [2003] 263 ITR 304/127 Taxman 162 (Mad.). 10. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as decisions cited

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

195 of the Act and consequently no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was called for. 10. Without prejudice, the CITA(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied by the AO in respect of disallowance under Section 40(a)(1) of the Act without appreciating that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(1

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT-1, MUMBAI

797/Mum/2018

195(1) of the Act on such payment. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. 10.3. Respectfully following the same, the ground No.6 raised by the Revenue for A.Y.2012-13 is dismissed. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., 11. The ground No.7 raised by the Revenue is challenging the method of computation of deduction u/s.10AA