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

ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

transfer pricing provisions envisage computation of income from specified international transactions of receipt or expenditure, ofcourse with reference to the stated price of such transactions. This is completely in contrast to Chapter-XII G, where the stated price of the transaction has no relevance to the computation of income of qualifying ships, which is based on the weight

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

ESSAR PORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

transfer pricing provisions envisage computation of income from specified international transactions of receipt or expenditure, of- course with reference to the stated price of such transactions. This is completely in contrast to Chapter- XII G, where the stated price of the transaction has no relevance to the computation of income of qualifying ships, which is based on the weight

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year : 2007-08

transfer pricing adjustment would not have any effect on the taxable income of the assessee. The Ld. Senior Counsel also submitted that Section 115VA starts with a non-obstante clause stating that sections 28 to 43C

ESSAR PORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhessar Ports Ltd. Acit-6(2)(2), Essar House, 11, Keshavrao Room No. 563 (C), Vs. Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400034. M.K. Road, Pan: Aaace8391D Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala Ar’S Respondent By : Shri Mukundraj Chate Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

transfer pricing provisions envisage computation of income from specified international transactions of receipt or expenditure, of- course with reference to the stated price of such transactions. This is completely in contrast to Chapter-XII G, where the stated price of the transaction has no relevance to the computation of income of qualifying ships, which is based on the weight

DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing officer has made an adjustment of ₹ 197,951,187 and the assessee has not shown the same as international transaction, the learned dispute resolution panel held that the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantee should be taken at 1% of the amount of guarantee. Accordingly, the objections of the assessee were disposed of. 018. Based

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing officer has made an adjustment of ₹ 197,951,187 and the assessee has not shown the same as international transaction, the learned dispute resolution panel held that the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantee should be taken at 1% of the amount of guarantee. Accordingly, the objections of the assessee were disposed of. 018. Based

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act both under normal provisions of the Act\nas well as under the computation of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. We find\nthat the Id. CIT(A) had deleted the said disallowance by observing as under:-\n\"This is a matter arising for the first time in the case of assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VAN OORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.K Aggarwal

transfer pricing provisions envisage computation of income from specified international transactions of receipt or expenditure, of-course with reference to the stated price of such transactions. This is completely in contrast to Chapter-XII G, where the stated price of the transaction has no relevance to the computation of income of qualifying ships, which is based on the weight

DEPUTY CIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

transfer pricing provisions envisage computation of income from specified international transactions of receipt or expenditure, of course with reference to the stated price of such transactions. This is completely in contrast to Chapter-XII G, where the stated price of the transaction has no relevance to the computation of income of qualifying ships, which is based on the weight

M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed

transfer pricing, where\nthe said price of any transaction cannot be applied to while computing income of\nqualifying ships which are merely based on the weight of the ship and the number of\ndays it has been held for which Arm's Length Price has no relevance. It further held\nthat the provisions of Section 115VA overrides Section

ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.10 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Essar Shipping Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T.-5(1)(2), 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. Mumbai-400034. Pan/Gir No.Aacce 3707 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

transfer pricing provisions envisage computation of income from specified international transactions of receipt or expenditure, ofcourse with reference to the stated price of such transactions. This is completely in contrast to Chapter-XII G, where the stated price of the transaction has no relevance to the computation of income of qualifying ships, which is based on the weight

M/S. VAN-OORD INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 5(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Raheja Towers, Opp. Sidbi, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach5430J ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

transfer pricing provisions envisage computation of income from specified international transactions of receipt or expenditure, of-course with reference to the stated price of such transactions. This is completely in contrast to Chapter-XII-G, where the stated price of the transaction has no relevance to the computation of income of qualifying ships, which is based on the weight

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES(T.P ISSUES): (i) Ground No.15 : General (ii) Ground No.16 to 18: T.P adjustment on interest on foreign currency loans to Associated Enterprises. (iii) Ground NO.19 to 21: T.P adjustment in respect of performance guarantee given on behalf of the Associated Enterprises. (iv) Ground No.22 to 24: T.P. Adjustment in respect of financial guarantee given on behalf

ACIT - 3(4), MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

43C, in the case of a company, the income from the business of\noperating qualifying ships, may, at its option, be computed in accordance\nwith the provisions of this Chapter and such income shall be deemed to\nbe the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the\nhead “Profits and gains of business or profession

KEVA FRGRANCES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 4 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

43C(1): 'Cost' of stock-in-trade in the hands of amalgamated company to be taken the same as in the hands of amalgamating company held either as capital asset or stock-in-trade vi) Section 72A: Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger, etc vii) Section

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

transferred by the assessee is not at all a depreciable asset and thus, the question of claiming depreciation on the same does not arise. 27. In the perception of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Accountant Member, the above interpretation of the statute will lead to allowance of double deduction to the assessee, which is not permitted under

SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU)-CIRCLE, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Shipping Corporation Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (L.T.U.)-Circle-2, 245, Shipping House, Madam Cama Vs. 29Th Floor, Centre-2, World Road, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Aaact 1524 F Appellant Respondent

43C of the Act i.e. profit and gains of business or profession. In section 115V-I of the Act, income from operation of the qualified ships is defined as ‘relevant shipping income’, which consists of profit from ‘core activities’ and profit from ‘incidental activities’. The profit from incidental activities in excess of 0.25% turnover from core activities has been excluded