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

9 of the income- tax Act, 1961, thus establishing that the liability to deduct tax ot source under section 195 arose which the assessee failed to discharge?" 11. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction, holding that the year-end provision represents a known liability

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

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

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

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

9) TPO in the case of Chiron India has made adjustments based on purchase price of Assessee i.e. Rs.127/- per vial which is mutually contradictory resulting in candle burning from both sides; h) export and domestic markets are different and their prices can never be compared inasmuch as demand and supply situation, purchasing parity. pricing structure, tax structure and penetration

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

9) TPO in the case of Chiron India has made adjustments based on purchase price of Assessee i.e. Rs.127/- per vial which is mutually contradictory resulting in candle burning from both sides; h) export and domestic markets are different and their prices can never be compared inasmuch as demand and supply situation, purchasing parity. pricing structure, tax structure and penetration

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

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

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 ()

9. A perusal of the loan agreement chart (reproduced hereinbelow) and its successive amendments, reveals that, the assessee’s intra- group loan to the Mauritius AE was repeatedly enhanced from USD 39 I.T.A. No. 2364/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2365/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2366/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2367/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2767/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 112/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 111/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 113/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 114/Mum/2025

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

Section 40A(9)" ], "issues": "Transfer pricing adjustments on correspondent banking activities, marketing and support services, and derivatives; deductibility of employee

DCIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

40A(9)", "Section 195", "Section 201(1)", "Section 201(1A)" ], "issues": "The appeals involved disputes concerning transfer pricing adjustments on various

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT - 10 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

9 is allowed. 39. Ground No. 10 becomes otiose. 40. Ground No. 11 relates to disallowance of prior period expenses of *.73.71 crores. During the course of the assessment proceedings the query raised that as per the Tax Audit Report prior period expenses are *.73,71,75,163/-, in the report it is further mentioned that *.9.37 crores pertaining

DCIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly\nallowed and that of the revenue are partly allowed

transfer pricing adjustments for correspondent banking, marketing and support services, and derivatives. Domestic issues like employee separation expenses, gratuity fund overfunding, and nosto account maintenance charges were also dealt with.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 37", "Section 35DDA", "Section 10(10C)", "Section 195", "Section 40(a)(i)", "Section 40A(9

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9. It was the observation of DRP that the TPO on the basis of seven following final set of following comparable arrived at net margin at 2.13%. (i) Neysa Jewellery Ltd, (ii) Golkunda Dimamonds & Jewellery Ltd. (iii) Kanani Industries Ltd., (iv) Shantivijay Jewels Pvt Ltd, (v) Sidds Jewellels Pvt. Ltd. (vi) Shangold India Ltd, (vii) Fine Jewelry

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

9(1) (vii) of the Act. 3.2 The Ld. AO further erred in observing that the said VSAT and lease line charges are covered by section 194J / 194C of the Act. 3.3 The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO he directed to delete the said disallowance of Rs 2,58,839 made under section

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

9(1) (vii) of the Act. 3.2 The Ld. AO further erred in observing that the said VSAT and lease line charges are covered by section 194J / 194C of the Act. 3.3 The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO he directed to delete the said disallowance of Rs 2,58,839 made under section

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

9(1) (vii) of the Act. 3.2 The Ld. AO further erred in observing that the said VSAT and lease line charges are covered by section 194J / 194C of the Act. 3.3 The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO he directed to delete the said disallowance of Rs 2,58,839 made under section