HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment and disallowance under section 40a (ia) is concerned. As far as disallowance under section 14A is concerned, DRP reduced the amount from Rs. 27,16,560/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Being aggrieved with this

ABBOTT INDIA LTD.(SOLVAY PHARMA INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.7(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Chaudhary, Jm Ita No. 2032/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year2009-10)

section 142 (1) for assessment year 2008 – 09. (Page number 40 of the paper book). v Vide letter dated 17 October 2011 filed before the learned transfer pricing officer placed at page number 45 – 52 of the paper book was furnished by Abbott India Ltd. vi Subsequently all the correspondences were made by Abbott India Ltd before the learned assessing

ABBOTT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Chaudhary, Jm Ita No. 2032/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year2009-10)

section 142 (1) for assessment year 2008 – 09. (Page number 40 of the paper book). v Vide letter dated 17 October 2011 filed before the learned transfer pricing officer placed at page number 45 – 52 of the paper book was furnished by Abbott India Ltd. vi Subsequently all the correspondences were made by Abbott India Ltd before the learned assessing

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation Page No. | 15 ITA NO. 465 & 931/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2015-16) UltraTech Cement Limited demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation Page No. | 15 ITA NO. 465 & 931/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2015-16) UltraTech Cement Limited demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

35A permitted deduction only upto A.Y. 1998-99 and in later years even the part deduction was not allowable. 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that the deduction u/s.80HHC for the purpose of section 115JB is to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

35A permitted deduction only upto A.Y. 1998-99 and in later years even the part deduction was not allowable. 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that the deduction u/s.80HHC for the purpose of section 115JB is to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book

DEEPALI KIRAN POTNIS,KALYAN vs. ITO. INT. TAX, WARD-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 31-10-2019 7. Draft Assessment Order passed by AO u/s. 144C on 28-12-2019 8. Objections filed by assessee in Form 35A before the 24-1-2020 Dispute Resolution Panel on [within the time limit prescribed in section

GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED.,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MARGAO., MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharygigabyte Technology Vs. The Deputy (India) Private Limited Commissioner Of Income B-807 & 808, 8Th Floor, Tax, Circle -1, Margao, Naman Midtown, B-Wing, Goa Elphinstone Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd7556N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vishal Karla Respondent By : Ms. Mahita Nair

sections 234B and 234C of the Act. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. The fact in brief is that assesse is engaged in the business of dealing in computer

SKECHERS SARL ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

35A filed by the Assessee (Refer Pg. no. 14 of Detailed\nsubmission on objections filed before the DRP) It is reiterated that the\nintent behind introduction of SEP as emanating from the Explanatory\nMemorandum was to tax digital players and enterprises who carry\nout business in India digitally. The relevant extract of the Explanatory\nMemorandum is reproduced below for your

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 115TA of the Act\nprovides for different rates for different Assessees, which\nsubstantiates that the tax paid by trust u/s 115TA of the Act is the\ntax paid on behalf of the Assessee. The taxability in the hands of\nthe Securitisation trust.\nThus, the interest income of the Assessee, though not taxed in the\nhands of the Assessee (investor

YES BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 10(34)\nof the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income\nand is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of\nthe Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between\ntaxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share and Stock\n\nM/s Yes Bank

ACRONIS ASIA PTE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )RANGE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed in the aforesaid terms

price\nTax pct\nAmount USD\n1\nSWSAABS0542: Acronis Cyber Protect Standard\nSubscription License, 1 Year - Renewal\n25\n21.33\n0%\n533.25\n2\nESSAHBL0541: Acronis Cyber Protect Standard\nServer Subscription License, 1 Year - Renewal\n2\n161.70\n0%\n323.40\n3\nSCFHBHL0541: Acronis Cloud Storage Subscription\nLicense 4 TB, 1 Year - Renewal\n1\n734.70\n0%\n734.70\nTotal\n1,591.35\nGST 0%\n0.00\nGross