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

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

253 13,81,28,572 2,38,87,498 1,82,30,608 14,37,85,46 8,39,08,700 4,57,61,781 --- 2 Office 16,39,85,153 -- 33,17,344 1,77,53,560 14,95,48,937 7,06,92,897 --- 72,79,798 1

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

253 CUP of Royalty thereof 6. Technical Service rendered, 1,17,91,101, Other method consideration received thereof 7. Professional services availed, and Fees 4,34,858 Other Method paid thereof 8. Marketing services (agency services) 1,70,99,895 CUP received and Commission paid thereof 9. Marketing services (agency services) 28,62,597 CUP rendered and Commission received thereof

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)

253(1 )(d) of the Act, which provides for an appeal from the order of the Assessing Officer pursuant to DRP's direction to the ITAT and bars an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, it is submitted that CIT does not hold jurisdiction under Section 263 to revisit the order of the DRP as they

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

1,97,54,77,395/- proposed in the Draft Assessment Order)\nin respect of roaming charges.\n6.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n6.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the\nmaterial on record.\n6.5. We note that in the identical facts and circumstances, the\nTribunal has, vide order dated 08/11/2023

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

1,97,54,77,395/- proposed in the Draft Assessment Order)\nin respect of roaming charges.\n6.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n6.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the\nmaterial on record.\n6.5. We note that in the identical facts and circumstances, the\nTribunal has, vide order dated 08/11/2023

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression 'reasonable cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression 'reasonable cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression 'reasonable cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression 'reasonable cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression 'reasonable cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression 'reasonable cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty

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. ()

253,73,00,819 5. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustments. The Assessing Officer, besides the TP adjustment also made additions on the corporate tax front as listed below – (1) Disallowance under section 14A Rs. 6,79,072/- (2) Denial of deduction under section 80IC Unit I Rs. 12,10,78,108/- Unit

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

Transfer Pricing, 4 (1) (2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) to examine arm’s-length price of those international transactions. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 4. The learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA (3) on 31/10/2019 dealing with the international transactions as under: – i. On verification of Form No. 3CEB, the TPO noted that

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

O.C TANNER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is, accordingly, he appeal is, accordingly, allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 O.C. Tanner India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(1), No. 2, Lave 7 Tower 2, Phase Ii, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raiaskaran Techpark Andheri Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Sakinaka S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aabco 1031 F Appellant Respondent

section 253, which empowers it to adjudicate appeals against final 253, which empowers it to adjudicate appeals against final 253, which empowers it to adjudicate appeals against final assessment orders passed by the AO. The DRP not being an assessment orders passed by the AO. The DRP not being an assessment orders passed by the AO. The DRP not being