RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing principles to such domestic transactions also, which led to the amendment in Explanation to Section 80IA(8) and insertion of Section 92BA? (Included in 7) 13.10 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating the fact and position of law that as per Section

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

transfer' also falls within the eligible activities for deduction u/s 801A of the Act. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has made the aforesaid observations in the context of objection raised before it regarding the claim u/s 801A of the Act on the ground that assessee was paid by the Government for the development work. The aforesaid objection was negated

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

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

801A of the Act.\n8. Disallowance of unsecured loans/security deposits\n8. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO/DRP has erred in disallowing unsecured loans/security deposit amounting to\nRs 2,00,75,850 obtained by Appellant during the subject year under Section 68 of\nthe Act.\n9. Transfer Pricing adjustment - Disallowance

ASST CIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ZYDUS NYCOMED HEALTHCARE P. LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Acit 15(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4670/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aayakar Bhavan,Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz0736D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2011-12. I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 4670/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12

7) rw.s 801A(8) and 801A(10) to bring home the point that he had the powers to adopt the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived in case he found that the business transactions were arranged with other parties so as to produce more than ordinary profits. Apart from the above, Ld. AO referred

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAVKAR CORPORATION LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, we affirm the order of the Ld

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

801A, the base amount for calculating deduction got reduced from Rs 80,36,50,237 to Rs 66,37,35,347 i.e. reduction of Rs. 13,99,14,890 which is exactly the amount of deduction reduced by AO. Since, AO has not disturbed the total receipts and the basis of apportionment of expenses Le in turnover ratio

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

transfer by the appellant but solely on account of the appellant's income and share of profit generated from such JV /firm. When no funds whatsoever, borrowed or otherwise, have been invested in JVs/firms, the applicability of section 14A does not arise. When there is no expenditure incurred in relation Page No. 27 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

transfer by the appellant but solely on account of the appellant's income and share of profit generated from such JV /firm. When no funds whatsoever, borrowed or otherwise, have been invested in JVs/firms, the applicability of section 14A does not arise. When there is no expenditure incurred in relation Page No. 27 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017

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

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Price.\n6.3.7 With reference to above, judicial precedents rendered by various\nTribunals while examining 'market price' in the context of power supplied\nby power plants to manufacturing units has held that the rate at which\nthe State Electricity Board supplies power to its consumers is to be\nconsidered to be the market value:\n• M/s Hero Motocorp Limited

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee...... and definition of 'market value in Explanation (i) of section 801A(8) market value means (1) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market", what is to be seen and tested with comparable is the price that the electricity generated by the eligible unit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee...... and definition of 'market value in Explanation (i) of section 801A(8) market value means (1) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market", what is to be seen and tested with comparable is the price that the electricity generated by the eligible unit

WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee [ITA No

transfer price of per unit of power at INR.3.50/- and adoption of rate of power purchase at rate at which Karnataka Power Transmission Itd (KPTL) is purchasing power from third parties? 7. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, and without prejudice to question at (1) to (6) above, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in allowing

ACIT (CIR.) - 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHANDAR POWER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

price for supply of electricity by assessee to the group companies comprises of two components viz Annual fixed charges and Variable charges. The Annual fixed charges consist of the interest on debt, return on equity, depreciation on the assets and operation and maintenance cost which are apportioned among the customers in proportion to the power generation capacity allocated to them

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer of power. The TPO also held that the assessee has not made any adjustment towards the distribution cost to make the prices comparable and thus the CUP data used by the assessee is defective. The TPO proceeded to adopt the power purchase cost charged by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (GUVNL) while purchasing power from coal based thermal power

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(4) EARLIER WITH ACIT(LTU) 1, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.563/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)\nAditya BirlaNuvo Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 1(4)\n(Since Amalgamated with\nGrasim Industries Limited)\nA2 Aditya Birla Centre, S. K.\nAhire Marg, Worli, Mumbai\nEarlier with Asst. CIT(LTU) 1\nRoom No. 902, Old CGO\nBuilding, 9th Floor, M. K. Road,\nMumbai-400 020\nPAN/GIR No.AAACI1747H\n(Appellant) .. (Respondent)\nITA No.1885/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)

Transfer Pricing Officer cannot be sustained. Ground No. 7 thus stands allowed in favour of the assessee and the deduction under section 80 IA must be computed on the basis of the rate of Rs 6.62 per unit without any downward modification. 7. To summarise, all the findings recorded by the Division Bench on all other grounds stands except

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer Pricing Provisions under the Income Tax Act. 2.9.5 Proceeding further, finding defects in the assessee’s methodology to benchmark the same by External CUP in view of the fact that comparable entities were based in USA whereas the loans was advanced to Mauritius entity and further, the credit rating of Mauritius AE would be much lower than

ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

801A(8) has clearly defined that "Market Value" means the price of goods/services would fetch, if these were sold by the unit/undertaking in the open market subject to statutory regulations, if any and the assessee had clearly violated this section 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

price at which the consumers were\nable to procure the power. Had the assessee not been saddled with\nrestrictions of supplying surplus power to the State Electricity Board, it\nwould have supplied power to the ultimate consumers at rates similar to\nthose of the Board or such other competitive rates, meaning thereby that\nprice received by the assessee would