TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

3 are related to Transfer Pricing On the issue of Provision of Software, Technical and Consultancy Services: 1.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in directing the AO/TPO to restrict the adjustment made on account of Provision of Software & Consultancy Services by relying on the decision

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

section 92C(1). of the method prescribed under section 92C(1). 38. The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice prevailing in the in the diamond industry separate identity of the diamond

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing order dated 30th September, 2005, passed under section 92CA (3) is beyond jurisdiction and thus null and void.” 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the above additional grounds of appeal is not pressed at this stage, accordingly, the above additional ground is dismissed as not pressed. Page No.| 6 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing order dated 30th September, 2005, passed under section 92CA (3) is beyond jurisdiction and thus null and void.” 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the above additional grounds of appeal is not pressed at this stage, accordingly, the above additional ground is dismissed as not pressed. Page No.| 6 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO

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).

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

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

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and\nspells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in\ncertain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which\napply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise\nallowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If\nwe consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with\nand enact different conditions

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RUBBERWALA REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to\n2021-22 stands allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2018-19\nstands dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on this ...

3. Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing\nOfficer, the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the\nTribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in\nrejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a\nmatter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot\nrepresent the income of the assessee

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing matters by the AO/ TPO be deleted. VI. Disallowance of loss on account of error trades amounting to Rs. 21, 24,000/- 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in treating the loss of Rs. 21,24,000 incurred on account of error trades as speculation loss

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

transfer pricing matters by the AO/ TPO be deleted. VI. Disallowance of loss on account of error trades amounting to Rs. 21, 24,000/- 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in treating the loss of Rs. 21,24,000 incurred on account of error trades as speculation loss

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) 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

transfer pricing matters by the AO/ TPO be deleted. VI. Disallowance of loss on account of error trades amounting to Rs. 21, 24,000/- 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in treating the loss of Rs. 21,24,000 incurred on account of error trades as speculation loss

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

40A(2) and Section 80IA(10), need to be amended\nempowering the Assessing Officer to make adjustments to the income\ndeclared by the assessee having regard to the fair market value of\nthe transactions between the related parties. The Assessing Officer may\nthereafter apply any of the generally accepted methods of determination\nof arm's length price, including the methods

TOWERS WATSON INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

Transfer Pricing Officer has made an upward adjustment to the Arm’s length Price by Rs. 11,91,65,955/- vide order passed u/s 92CA(3) dated 30.01.2013. Accordingly, the AO has added the arm’s length adjustment of Rs.11,91,65,955/- to the total income of the assessee vide order u/s 143(3) dated 26.04.2013 and also disallowed

M/S EDELWISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Edelweiss Rural & Acit Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Cgo Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakcs 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement ___/03/2023 Order

40A(2) of the Act and substitute the ubstitute the ‘transacted price’ with the with the ‘market price’ unless books of accounts of the assessee unless books of accounts of the assessee are rejected invoking rejected invoking section 145(3) of the section 145(3) of the Act and profit or loss of the business is ct and profit

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

transfer pricing adjustment made M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited in respect of special purpose loan of USD 110 million. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to address the additional ground raised by the assessee on 16/05/2011 which is as under:- 1. The appellant company prays that it be allowed

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

transfer pricing adjustment made M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited in respect of special purpose loan of USD 110 million. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to address the additional ground raised by the assessee on 16/05/2011 which is as under:- 1. The appellant company prays that it be allowed

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

transfer pricing adjustment made M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited in respect of special purpose loan of USD 110 million. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to address the additional ground raised by the assessee on 16/05/2011 which is as under:- 1. The appellant company prays that it be allowed

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

40A(9) of the Act (iv) Disallowance of INR 4,11,94,218/- relating to depreciation – sale of Bangalore Works (v) Disallowance of INR 3,18,00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act (vi) Addition of INR 4,25,44,104/- on account of extinguishment of debt being sales tax deferred loan liability (vii) Transfer pricing