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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

1) to section 92A and the condition mentioned in sub-section (2) to section 92A of the Act both have to be satisfied. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Kaybee Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.2164/Mum/2015 decided on 28/02/2020. (ii) Veer Gems, 407 ITR 639(Guj)/ 256 Taxman 298(SC) (iii) Ambico Exports and Imports

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

SOLVAY SPECIALITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(2) / ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. GIRISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). This direction is unjust and not based on substantive grounds. The Appellant sabmits that such an enhancement should be based on valid grounds and not due to a typographical error. 4. Incorrect disallowance of interest on late payment of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of INR 8.55,423 4.1 On facts and circumstances of the case

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaltata International Ltd., Block A, Shivsagar Estates Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018, Pan: Aaact3198F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit – 7(3), R. No. 675, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

section 92B (1). It was further stated that merely an unequivocal statement of intention expressed by assessee not being bilateral, is not a transaction and letter is a private affair between the assessee and the lender/banker (non associate and is not a transaction between two associate). The contention of assessee was not accepted by TPO by taking view that transaction

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

282,69,74,620/- and worked out the book profit u/s 115JB of Rs. 533,23,30,335/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act dated 26.03.2013. 8. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions

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 INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

1) and 57(iii) are subject to the provisions of Section 14-A. 3.4.7 The learned AO-DRP erred in holding that a part of the aggregate interest of Rs. 12,98,29,264 paid by the Appellant in respect of capital borrowed by the Appellant for the purposes of its business was disallowable under Section

TRANSUNION INTERNATIONAL INC.,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Transfer Pricing Officers tend to take a conservative view. The correction of such view take very long time with the existing appellate structure. With a view to provide speedy disposal, it is proposed to amend the Income- tax Act so as to create an alternative dispute resolution mechanism within the income-tax department and accordingly, section 144C has been proposed

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

282 under Section 234D of the Act: 12. On the fact and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute at any time before or at the time of the appeal, to enable accordance with

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNAITOANL SERVICES (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

transfer pricing study report, the Ld.TPO noted that, assessee used TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin under both segment as under: Particulars ITES Software Total Operating Income 443,412 392,282 834,694 Other Income 20,930 Total Income 443,412 392,282 856,624 Expenditure

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(1)(OSD), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

transfer pricing study report, the Ld.TPO noted that, assessee used TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin under both segment as under: Particulars ITES Software Total Operating Income 443,412 392,282 834,694 Other Income 20,930 Total Income 443,412 392,282 856,624 Expenditure

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated 09.01.2015 computing a TP Adjustment towards performance guarantee at Rs. 5,26,17,801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated 09.01.2015 computing a TP Adjustment towards performance guarantee at Rs. 5,26,17,801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

THE DY CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt