M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

220/-. In the return of income n the return of income, income , income from shipping business was offered on presumptive basis under Tonnage Tax business was offered on presumptive basis under Tonnage Tax business was offered on presumptive basis under Tonnage Tax Scheme provided u/s 115BA of the Income cheme provided u/s 115BA of the Income

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

Price rip t. r 2013- One 169,178 15,64,376 15,64,376 939 146,149,491 2,188,772,167 2,042,622.677 2,042,622.677 43.26 883638569.9 14 ICC % (As Two 198.799 18,289,508 18,289,508 939 171,738,480 2,610,218,660 2,438,480.180 2

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

Price rip t. r 2013- One 169,178 15,64,376 15,64,376 939 146,149,491 2,188,772,167 2,042,622.677 2,042,622.677 43.26 883638569.9 14 ICC % (As Two 198.799 18,289,508 18,289,508 939 171,738,480 2,610,218,660 2,438,480.180 2

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

Price rip t. r 2013- One 169,178 15,64,376 15,64,376 939 146,149,491 2,188,772,167 2,042,622.677 2,042,622.677 43.26 883638569.9 14 ICC % (As Two 198.799 18,289,508 18,289,508 939 171,738,480 2,610,218,660 2,438,480.180 2

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

Price rip t. r 2013- One 169,178 15,64,376 15,64,376 939 146,149,491 2,188,772,167 2,042,622.677 2,042,622.677 43.26 883638569.9 14 ICC % (As Two 198.799 18,289,508 18,289,508 939 171,738,480 2,610,218,660 2,438,480.180 2

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

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

2) Denial of deduction under section 80IC Unit I Rs. 12,10,78,108/- Unit II Rs. 40,41,80,939/- Rs. 6,65,60,220/- (3) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP confirmed the adjustments/disallowances made by the TPO/Assessing Officer except for the disallowance made under section

DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TRANSOCEAN DRILLING SERVICES (INDIA) PLT, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 92F(ii) that no unrelated party in uncontrolled circumstances would have passed on such huge contract amount exceeding Rs.622.57 Crores without charging or retaining any commission." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, the name lending and front end entity activities done

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

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

2  Deleting the disallowance made under section 14A – Ground 3  Allowing payment to Tata Sons Ltd towards brand equity subscription as revenue in nature – Grounds 4 & 5  Allowing commission paid to non resident agents disallowed by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) – Ground 6 3 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd  Deleting the disallowance of year-end provisions

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

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

2  Deleting the disallowance made under section 14A – Ground 3  Allowing payment to Tata Sons Ltd towards brand equity subscription as revenue in nature – Grounds 4 & 5  Allowing commission paid to non resident agents disallowed by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) – Ground 6 3 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd  Deleting the disallowance of year-end provisions

M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT2(3) (1) - , MUMBAI

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

220/- in respect of specified domestic transaction of inter-unit transfer of power from the eligible 2 M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. undertaking u/s.80-IA of the Act to other manufacturing undertaking of the assessee which are non-eligible units. Besides this assessee has raised following two grounds also. 5. Unwarranted addition of Rs. 21.02 Cr. under the head "income from Business

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMAGRA WEALTHMAX PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

220 (Bom.). 21. Thereafter, your attention is also drawn to the provisions of section 47 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) which provides for certain "transactions not regarded as transfer." Clause (vi) of Section 47 provides as follows: "(vi) any transfer, in a scheme of amalgamation, of a capital asset by the amalgamating company to the Samagra Walthmax

PIRAMAL GLASS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RANGE 7(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Piramal Glass Pvt. Ltd Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass Room No.123A, Ltd) Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam M.K. Road, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 020 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg0093R

Section 92 of the Act, in chapter X , clearly provides that all international transactions have to be at Arm’s Length Price. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer noted that if the Piramal Glass Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y.2006-07 assessee had given this loan to any third party, interest would have been charged. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer also noted that assessee

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY C/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

section 37 of the act, since the addition was confirmed under the transfer pricing provisions. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee is on appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that Ground number 1 is general in nature and therefore do not require any education. Ground number 3 raised by the assessee

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT 3(1) (1) ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ITO/NFAC-DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Ups Express Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Dcit-3(1)(1) Express Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 6-A, Shyam Off Jvlr, Majas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Village, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400060 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu4322N Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023

220 countries and territories worldwide. For UPS worldwide expedited it delivers within three business days within a share and from a sure to major business centers in Europe or North America and South America. It handles letters, documents and non-document packages in excess of five KG. Thus, it is apparent that assessee is providing package delivery services door

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

transfer pricing adjustment accepted by the assessee under MAP as the income of assessee. Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 014. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, in 30th this case, the draft assessment order dated November, 2018, passed by the learned Assessing Officer contained the last

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

2 | As at \nMarch 31, 2004 | As at \nMarch 31, 2005 \nRupees | Rupees | Rupees \n---|---|---\nSPECIAL RESERVE No. I | 194,35,94,700 | 934,35,94,700\nLess: Transfer to Provision for Contingencies | 50,00,00,000 | 40,00,00,000 \nSPECIAL RESERVE No. II | 144,35,94,700 | 194,35,94,700 \nOpening Balance

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n54 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \nfor allocation of notional expenditure. The deductions contemplated are \nthe

SC ENVIRO AGRO INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Sc Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 3(3) 33Rd, 3 Rd Floor, Rm. No.609, Maker Chambers Vi, Vs. 6Th Floor, 220 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs6405F

220 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFCS6405F Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agrawal, AR Revenue by : Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 24.03.2023 Date of pronouncement : 27.03.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 against the order

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created