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

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing adjustment sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58 erred, both in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in sustaining an upward adjustment to the extent of Rs. 76,21,361/- towards non-recovery of guarantee commission from Associated Enterprises ('AEs) in relation

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing adjustment sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58 erred, both in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in sustaining an upward adjustment to the extent of Rs. 76,21,361/- towards non-recovery of guarantee commission from Associated Enterprises ('AEs) in relation

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

Transfer Pricing Grounds 1. Imputing interest on delayed receipt from debtors 2. Imputing interest on the share application money paid to the subsidiaries by the Appellant. 3. Imputing guarantee commission with respect to the corporate guarantees provided by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprises Corporate Tax Grounds 4. Disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Income

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

43B. In view of the above discussion, the grievance of the assessee is accepted and objection of the Revenue is overruled.‖ 5.3. It is noted from the above, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. and Vinay Cement Ltd. for allowing relief to the assessee. Respectfully following these

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

43B", "Section 92CA(1)", "Section 115JB", "Section 153" ], "issues": "1. Whether the issuance of letters of comfort, financial guarantees, and performance guarantees by the assessee to its AEs constituted international transactions and whether the transfer pricing

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

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustments related to guarantees (financial, corporate, and performance) and a deduction claimed under Section 35DD for stamp duty expenses during a scheme of arrangement. The Assessing Officer made additions for guarantee commission and disallowed the Section 35DD deduction. The CIT(A) granted partial relief.", "held": "The Tribunal held that Letters of Comfort (LOCs) do not constitute international transactions

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) vide order dated 30/01/2015 passed under section 92CA (3) of the Act by applying the SBI tariff card rate along with a markup determined arm’s length guarantee commission fees at 3%. Accordingly, the TPO, inter-alia, proposed adjustment of Rs. 7,10,30,009.77 in respect of international transaction of receipt of guarantee fees

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) vide order dated 30/01/2015 passed under section 92CA (3) of the Act by applying the SBI tariff card rate along with a markup determined arm’s length guarantee commission fees at 3%. Accordingly, the TPO, inter-alia, proposed adjustment of Rs. 7,10,30,009.77 in respect of international transaction of receipt of guarantee fees

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

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED ('FETSCS')[FEDERAL EXPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH FETSCS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER1,2013],MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

Section 43B of the Act be allowed, in case the disallowance of unpaid provision for leave encashment is upheld. III. Transfer Pricing

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

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

section 80HHC /80HHE etc. there is\nspecific provision to exclude from the \"Profit of the Business\", the other\nincome such as commission, brokerage, interest, rent etc. However,\nthere is no specific exclusion while computing deduction under section\n10A/10AA/10B of the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions,\nit is clear that, what is exempted is not merely the profits

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

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Transfer Pricing Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing as under:- 3. Regarding Question No.(a) (a) It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent - Assessee. This by the decision of this Court

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Transfer Pricing Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing as under:- 3. Regarding Question No.(a) (a) It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent - Assessee. This by the decision of this Court

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Transfer Pricing Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing as under:- 3. Regarding Question No.(a) (a) It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent - Assessee. This by the decision of this Court

CIBA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

transfer pricing adjustment. This ground is allowed. 8. In ground no.2, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of ` 43,96,080, under section 14A of the Act. 9. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that in the year under consideration, the assessee has received exempt income by way of dividend amounting