ACIT CEN CI-43 vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

260 2 RohaDyechem Thailand 1,31,62,905 2,63,258 3 Roha SRL, Italy 23,99,364 47,987` Total 5,04,505 ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 18 10.16 The arm's length price

ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

260 2 RohaDyechem Thailand 1,31,62,905 2,63,258 3 Roha SRL, Italy 23,99,364 47,987` Total 5,04,505 ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 18 10.16 The arm's length price

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

260 2 RohaDyechem Thailand 1,31,62,905 2,63,258 3 Roha SRL, Italy 23,99,364 47,987` Total 5,04,505 ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 18 10.16 The arm's length price

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

260 2 RohaDyechem Thailand 1,31,62,905 2,63,258 3 Roha SRL, Italy 23,99,364 47,987` Total 5,04,505 ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 18 10.16 The arm's length price

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

260 2 RohaDyechem Thailand 1,31,62,905 2,63,258 3 Roha SRL, Italy 23,99,364 47,987` Total 5,04,505 ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 18 10.16 The arm's length price

ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

260 2 RohaDyechem Thailand 1,31,62,905 2,63,258 3 Roha SRL, Italy 23,99,364 47,987` Total 5,04,505 ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 18 10.16 The arm's length price

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

260 2 RohaDyechem Thailand 1,31,62,905 2,63,258 3 Roha SRL, Italy 23,99,364 47,987` Total 5,04,505 ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 18 10.16 The arm's length price

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

260 2 RohaDyechem Thailand 1,31,62,905 2,63,258 3 Roha SRL, Italy 23,99,364 47,987` Total 5,04,505 ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 18 10.16 The arm's length price

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

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

260/- under regular provisions of the Income provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and book tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and book profit of Rs.66,87,76,855/ profit of Rs.66,87,76,855/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The return of u/s 115JB of the Act. The return of income filed

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

260/- as against the returned income of Rs 5,83,67,890/-.\n\nArm's length Price (ALP)/Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustments\n- Jurisdictional Issues\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned\nAssessing Officer wholly erred in making addition on account of \"Arm's length\nprice in relation to international transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

260 or or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

260 or or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

260 or or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

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 ()

260/- was disposed off during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration. (b). It was submitted that, on these loans, interest was charged at LIBOR plus 142 basis point and thus, the total interest was determined at Rs.6,27,50,560/-, details of which were submitted as under:- 9 I.T.A. No. 2364/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2365/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2366/Mum/2025

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Section 92C of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in restricting the rate of interest on loans given to Associated Enterprises @ LIBOR + 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

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Section 92C of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in restricting the rate of interest on loans given to Associated Enterprises @ LIBOR + 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

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Section 92C of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in restricting the rate of interest on loans given to Associated Enterprises @ LIBOR + 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