M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

price of\nan article all elements of cost which go into manufacturing or selling it.\nThus understood, it is clear that profits and gains are derived from the\nbusiness of the assessee, namely profits arrived at after deducting\nmanufacturing cost and selling costs reimbursed to the assessee by the\nGovernment concerned.\n19. Similarly, the judgment in Pandian Chemicals

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

price allocation exercise as at 31/03/2015, i.e.\nthe valuation date. As noted in the foregoing paragraphs, Accounting\nStandard-14 further requires that any excess of the amount of the\nconsideration over the value of net assets of the amalgamating company\nacquired by the amalgamated company should be recognised in the\namalgamated company's financial statements as goodwill on amalgamation.\nTherefore

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

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

transfer of capital assets,\npursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the purview of section 45 of\nthe Act. Therefore, we are of the view that these provisions have no\nrelevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements, which have been dealt with hereunder

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

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144B", "144C(5)", "253(1)", "92CA", "40A(7)", "37(1)", "43B", "43B(f)", "36(1)(va)", "80G", "80G(1)(ii)", "80G(2)(iiihk)", "80G(2)(iiihl)", "115P", "234C", "234B", "270A", "139(1)", "135 of the Companies Act, 2013", "Chapter VIA" ], "issues": "The primary issues involved were transfer pricing

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Section\n43B shall not apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by\nthe assessee in the next accounting year if it is paid on or before\nthe due date for furnishing the return of income in respect of the\nprevious year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred\nand the evidence of such payment

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

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

36(1)(va)\n50,553\n\nAssessed income u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1)\nr.w.s 144B\n17,86,30,530\n\n6. 1. Against the said draft order, assessee filed objections before the\nDispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (DRP). In the DRP proceedings,\nassessee furnished all the relevant documentary evidences and\nexplanations for the claim of deduction made u/s.80IA

SCHINDLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIR-15(3)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing adjustments (royalty and management charges) are dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee entering into an Advanced Pricing Agreement (APA). The addition of provision for bad and doubtful debts to book profits was deleted, holding it to be an actual write-off not hit by Section 115JB. The disallowance of employee's PF contribution was dismissed

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