CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C(2) of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in wrongly computing the amount of TDS and the amount refunded to the Appellant for the purpose of determining the tax liability of the Appellant for assessment year 2009- 10. 10. That on the facts and circumstances

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.

TDS credit. The assessee is IT enabled and BPO service provider and has shown income of Rs.86,36,70,289/- from the said business during the year. Further, the assessee has shown interest income of Rs.15,11,64,039/- as „income from other sources‟. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s.143

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS of Rs.33,83,093 as against Rs.43,83,437 (as per\nForm 26AS) claimed by the Appellant, thereby there is a short tax credit of\nTDS of Rs.10,00,344.\n14. Ground 14A - Penalty proceedings\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT\nerred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

3 percent variation as per the proviso to the Section 92C(2) of the Act. Ground No.3 - Adjustment in respect of interest paid on Structured Loan Interest on Structured Loan 7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in determining the arm's length

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

TDS under section 40a(ia) of the Act. AO further disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment

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

TDS under section 40a(ia) of the Act. AO further disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment

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

TDS under section 40a(ia) of the Act. AO further disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

92C(1) by the TPO is not tenable. We notice that the TPO has computed the TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited also in the same way by 33 ITAs 1240/Mum/2016 ITA 1518/Mum/2017 Mondelez International applying adhoc estimation of salary cost and man hours. Therefore our decision with respect regional service fee paid to Cadbury Enterprises

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

92C(1) by the TPO is not tenable. We notice that the TPO has computed the TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited also in the same way by 33 ITAs 1240/Mum/2016 ITA 1518/Mum/2017 Mondelez International applying adhoc estimation of salary cost and man hours. Therefore our decision with respect regional service fee paid to Cadbury Enterprises

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such