M/S. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

36(1)(va). Being aggrieved of such disallowance, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 22. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee in the light of certain judicial pronouncements held that employer’s contribution to PF having been paid prior to date of filing of return of income is allowable. As far as employees’ contribution

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 Adjustment of account of interest on loan to Associated Enterprises to the extent sustained by the CIT(A). 16.1. Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Assessee is identical to Ground No. III raised in appeal by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dismissed hereinabove. Both

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 Adjustment of account of interest on loan to Associated Enterprises to the extent sustained by the CIT(A). 16.1. Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Assessee is identical to Ground No. III raised in appeal by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dismissed hereinabove. Both

DCIT CIR. 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GUJARAT GLASS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. PIRAMAL GLASS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed the deduction claimed of ` 14,85,755. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue in appeal, allowed assessee’s claim since the employees’ contribution was paid within the grace period allowed under the PF Act and much before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out-goings forming part of the assessees' liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these alone

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(va) 50,553 Assessed income u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) r.w.s 144B 17,86,30,530 6. 1. Against the said draft order, assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (DRP). In the DRP proceedings, assessee furnished all the relevant documentary evidences and explanations for the claim of deduction made u/s.80IA as well

LILY JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Lily Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Unit No. 503, Block No. Ii, Vs. Officer – 10(2)(2) Seepz-Sez, Seepz++, Room No. 350, 3Rd Floor, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 096 Mumbai Pan No. Aaacl9600J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Aamod Prabhudesai & : Ms. Shubhangi Prabhudesai, A.Rs Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2021

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Transfer Pricing Computation of arm's length price [Comparables and adjustments] - In transfer pricing proceedings, TPO while determining ALP of international transactions, noticed that outstanding balance from Associated Enterprises was amounting to Rs.8.76 crores - said amount was outstanding for more than year and, thus, taking rate of interest at 10 per cent

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 6(3),

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

36(1)(va), as the case may be, and the additions made by invoking these provisions are hereby deleted.” 79. Respectfully following the above decision, on similar facts as the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that provisions of section 43B should be construed in a liberal way keeping in view the Legislative intention so that absurdity and the interpretation

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

36. Now we shall proceed to discuss Ground No.2 relates to validity of taxability of gifted shares to Assessee Company, under various sections of Income-tax Act. We have considered the rival submissions of the ld Counsels of the parties. We have also deliberated on various judicial pronouncement referred by the lower authorities in their orders as well as various

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

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITEIS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing adjustment. Accordingly, in view of the above, grounds no.1 and 2 raised in assessee's appeal are dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the disallowance made on account of Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”) expenses. 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

transfer pricing officer. It is the duty of the assessee to benchmark the international transactions according to the provisions of section 92C (3) of the act. The primary onus lies on the assessee to show that its international transactions are at arm's-length. The learned TPO, may examine the same, after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee, decide

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

transfer pricing officer. It is the duty of the assessee to benchmark the international transactions according to the provisions of section 92C (3) of the act. The primary onus lies on the assessee to show that its international transactions are at arm's-length. The learned TPO, may examine the same, after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee, decide

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

transfer pricing officer. It is the duty of the assessee to benchmark the international transactions according to the provisions of section 92C (3) of the act. The primary onus lies on the assessee to show that its international transactions are at arm's-length. The learned TPO, may examine the same, after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee, decide

HERRENKNECHT INDIA P.LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIR 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Transfer Pricing Officer for computation of Arm’s Length Price in relation to the international transactions of the assessee company. The TPO, vide his order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 29/01/2016 has made an upward adjustment to the Arm’s Length Price of international transactions of the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. AO has passed a draft assessment order

FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Transfer Pricing Officer without any deliberation on the issue. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after considering assessee’s claim of adopting the PLI of net margin / operating revenue and also examining working of margins submitted by the assessee at Page

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO , DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1)(va) of the Act 1.75-77-735 INR On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in treating the contributions of the employees towards the provident fund amounting to INR 1,75.77.375, not remitted within the due date prescribed by respective Act as income of the Appellant without appreciating the fact that the amounts were

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. (ASOL) AS A SUCCESSOR TO ACCENTURE SERIVCES PVT LTD (ASPL),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 14 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing grounds 21. Erred in making addition amounting to Rs 14,50,987 on account of delayed payment of employees' contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance under Section 36( 1 )(va

MACROTECH DEVEOPERS LIMITED (SUCESSOR TO SHREENIWAS COTTON MILLS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Dcit, Cc-7(3) Mills Ltd) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd) Dcit, Cc-7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri Asif Karmali

transfer pricing officer is reasonable. With respect to the disallowance under section 36 (1) (va) of deposit of provident fund