VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2012] 137 ITD 21 (Mum): \"37. On the issue as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer is empowered to determine the arm's length price at \"nil\", we find that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Gemplus India P. Ltd. 2010-TII-55- ITAT-BANGTP, held that the assessee has to establish before

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

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

9,96,61,577 being the 'Singapore tax\npaid as defined under Article 25 (3) of the of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement\nbetween India and Singapore.\nGrounds related to Transfer Pricing:\n2 Transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations,\n2.1 The Id. CIT (A) erred in law, on facts and in circumstances of the case in not\ndeleting the transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made

THE DY. DIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. ATL MEDIA LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO EXPAND FAST HOLDINGS LTD.), MUMBAI

1)(i) of the Act. The Id.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that CBDT in Circular No.23 of 1969 (supra) while dealing with scope of Section 9 explained that if, agent's commission fully represents the value of the profits attributable to its service, it should prima-facie extinguish the assessment. The principle laid down in the Circular

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), the additional grounds for substantial cause and justice is taken on record and we proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 30. The Ld.AR submitted that language of section 80HH and section 10AA are pari material inasmuch as both the sections provides that "in computing the total income of the assessee, deduction

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), the additional grounds for substantial cause and justice is taken on record and we proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 30. The Ld.AR submitted that language of section 80HH and section 10AA are pari material inasmuch as both the sections provides that "in computing the total income of the assessee, deduction

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per section 92CA(3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation under section 153 expires

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per section 92CA(3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation under section 153 expires

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

v. Excess grant of deduction under Section 36(1) (vii) of ₹12.23 crores as he failed to disallow the deduction to 10% of rural advances of ₹122.30 crores which were not rural branches ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 vi. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act of ₹138,52,06,494/- which should have been

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section 115- JB of the Act cannot be applied and consequently, tax on book profit (MAT) are not applicable to such banks. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (cited supra), Ground No.6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is allowed. 42. In view of our finding

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section 115- JB of the Act cannot be applied and consequently, tax on book profit (MAT) are not applicable to such banks. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (cited supra), Ground No.6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is allowed. 42. In view of our finding

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

1 November 2019, given that Section 92CA(3A) of the Act requires the transfer pricing order to be passed at any time before sixty days prior to the timeline for the assessment order, it is implied that such order must precede 31st December by not less than sixty days, and accordingly, the order passed by learned The is time barred

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

v) of the Act, then, benefit should be given to the assessee under the residuary clause i.e. section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. Moreover, Instruction no. 17/2008 dated 26.11.2008, relied upon by the CIT DR is also not applicable to the facts of the case. As regards, para ix of the aforesaid instruction, it is applicable to deduction towards

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

v) of the Act, then, benefit should be given to the assessee under the residuary clause i.e. section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. Moreover, Instruction no. 17/2008 dated 26.11.2008, relied upon by the CIT DR is also not applicable to the facts of the case. As regards, para ix of the aforesaid instruction, it is applicable to deduction towards

ATL MEDIA LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO EXPAND FAST HOLDINGS LTD.),MUMBAI vs. THE ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the\nRevenue is dismissed

1)(i) of the Act. The Id.Counsel for the assessee\nfurther submitted that CBDT in Circular No.23 of 1969 (supra) while dealing\nwith scope of Section 9 explained that if, agent's commission fully represents\nthe value of the profits attributable to its service, it should prima-facie\nextinguish the assessment. The principle laid down in the Circular

ATL MEDIA LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO EXPAND FAST HOLDINGS LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T.) - 1(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the\nRevenue is dismissed

1)(i) of the Act. The Id.Counsel for the assessee\nfurther submitted that CBDT in Circular No.23 of 1969 (supra) while dealing\nwith scope of Section 9 explained that if, agent's commission fully represents\nthe value of the profits attributable to its service, it should prima-facie\nextinguish the assessment. The principle laid down in the Circular

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

9 I.T.A. No. 2877/Mum/2014 Strides Shasun Limited of section 153, i.e. 31st March 2013, starts with 30.03.2013 as per the following calculation:- 60 day period expires on March = 30 days (excluding 31.03.2013) February = 28 days January = 2 days Thus, the date on which transfer pricing has been passed was 29.01.2013, whereas the transfer pricing order u/s 92CA (3) has been

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

9% 1. The participation in surplus fund, The said preference Shares shall in winding up be entitled to rank, as 1. The participation in surplus assets and regards repayment of capital and arrears profits, on winding-up which may remain after the entire capital has been repaid off dividend, whether declared or not, up to the commencement of the winding

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

9. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee pressed the Additional grounds relating to the validity of Transfer pricing order and submitted that the issue under consideration is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Mondelez India Food Private Limited v. Addl. CIT in ITA.No. 1492/Mum/2015 dated 14.11.2022. Copy