SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

195 and Sections 196A to 196D forming part of Chapter XVII-B of the IT Act. The liability to deduct TDS arises under the IT Act only if the amount due and payable assumes the nature of payment specified under Chapter XVII-B thereof. 13. Even assuming specific cases of payment under Chapter XVII

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

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

2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section

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

2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

195 and Sections 196A to 196D forming part of\nChapter XVII-B of the IT Act. The liability to deduct TDS arises under the\nIT Act only if the amount due and payable assumes the nature of payment\nspecified under Chapter XVII-B thereof.\n13. Even assuming specific cases of payment under Chapter XVII

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

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

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

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

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

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer pricing assessment, m) export price fixed by Chiron India made good commercial sense to take advantage of its surplus manufacturing capacity which is similar to airline company or hotels who charge different prices to different customers so as to achieve equilibrium by earning best profits in a given situation; n) therefore, CIT(A) is of view that price charged

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer pricing assessment, m) export price fixed by Chiron India made good commercial sense to take advantage of its surplus manufacturing capacity which is similar to airline company or hotels who charge different prices to different customers so as to achieve equilibrium by earning best profits in a given situation; n) therefore, CIT(A) is of view that price charged

UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

195 r.w.s.9(1)(vii) and\nExplanation to section 9(2). Accordingly, disallowance was made us. 40(a)(i). By\nthe impugned order, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.\n14. It was also argued by ld. AR that Titus being a resident law firm, is liable to\ntax in India. In view of proviso to Section 40(a)(i), in case

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from

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

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

2% instead of 17.22% proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing as under:- 3. Regarding Question No.(a) (a) It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent - Assessee. This

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

2% instead of 17.22% proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing as under:- 3. Regarding Question No.(a) (a) It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent - Assessee. This