MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned AO disbelieved

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Addition - Corporate guarantee 2,73,48,125/- 3. Disallowance under Section 35D 4,65,200/- 4. Disallowance of interest

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Addition - Corporate guarantee 2,73,48,125/- 3. Disallowance under Section 35D 4,65,200/- 4. Disallowance of interest

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former\nemployer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former\nemployer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case

STRIDES SHASUN LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment on issue of shares. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court,, the adjustment proposed by the' TPO on account of issue of shares is deleted. Accordingly, ground of objection number 16 of the assessee is allowed.” 20. We, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, reverse

JSW ENERGY 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\npurposes

Transfer Pricing\nProvisions under the Income Tax Act.\n\n2.9.5 Proceeding further, finding defects in the assessee's\nmethodology to benchmark the same by External CUP in view\nof the fact that comparable entities were based in USA\nwhereas the loans was advanced to Mauritius entity and\nfurther, the credit rating of Mauritius AE would be much lower\nthan

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

transfer pricing adjustment made by the LD. TPO was just a mere difference of opinion and thus levy of penalty was unjustified. 3. The LD. CIT(A) has erred in making an incorrect statement that the LD. CIT(A) in the quantum order under Section 250 itself has mentioned that appellant has not acted in a bonafide manner while making

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

transfer pricing adjustment made by the LD. TPO was just a mere difference of opinion and thus levy of penalty was unjustified. 3. The LD. CIT(A) has erred in making an incorrect statement that the LD. CIT(A) in the quantum order under Section 250 itself has mentioned that appellant has not acted in a bonafide manner while making

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)

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 of the Circular

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)

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 of the Circular

STRIDES SHASUN LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.932 /मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As 12 Grounds. Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset

transfer pricing adjustment on issue of shares. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court,, the adjustment proposed by the' TPO on account of issue of shares is deleted. Accordingly, ground of objection number 16 of the assessee is allowed.” 20. We, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, reverse

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENT LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

35D. 7. During the assessment proceedings before us, the Ld AR stated that the said expenditure was incurred in connection with the issue of shares for increase in share capital. AO made disallowance basing on the apex court judgments in the case of M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd (225 ITR 798)(SC) and M/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. TRENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, these grounds of appeal are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Trent Limited Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bombay House, Mumbai, Vs Maharashtra – 400001. Maharishi Karve Road, [Pan: Aaacl1838J] Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai Trent Limited 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs G Block, Plot No. C 60, Trent House, Maharishi Karve Road, Beside City Bank, Bandra K Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra E Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aaacl1838J] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

transfer pricing study report. Consequent upon a reference under section 92CA(3) was made for computation of arm’s length price with regard to such transaction. The TPO accepted international transaction with its associate enterprises, however, transaction between assessee and Fiora Services Limited (FSL) was considered as covered under section 40A(2)(a). The assessing officer on receipt of report

TRENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these grounds of appeal are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Trent Limited Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bombay House, Mumbai, Vs Maharashtra – 400001. Maharishi Karve Road, [Pan: Aaacl1838J] Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai Trent Limited 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs G Block, Plot No. C 60, Trent House, Maharishi Karve Road, Beside City Bank, Bandra K Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra E Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aaacl1838J] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

transfer pricing study report. Consequent upon a reference under section 92CA(3) was made for computation of arm’s length price with regard to such transaction. The TPO accepted international transaction with its associate enterprises, however, transaction between assessee and Fiora Services Limited (FSL) was considered as covered under section 40A(2)(a). The assessing officer on receipt of report

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

transferred to the assessee. The assessee claimed payment made to ACL as a revenue expenditure. The Assessing Office concluded that the expenses resulted in bringing into e ect and production new type of know how, that was to become the property of the assessee. Thus, same was a capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

transferred to the assessee. The assessee claimed payment made to ACL as a revenue expenditure. The Assessing Office concluded that the expenses resulted in bringing into e ect and production new type of know how, that was to become the property of the assessee. Thus, same was a capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

price of an article all elements of cost which go into manufacturing or selling it. Thus understood, it is clear that profits and gains are derived from the business of the assessee, namely, profits arrived at after deducting manufacturing costs and selling costs reimbursed to the assessee by the Government concerned. Section 28(b) specifically states that income from cash