Aztec Software And Technology vs ACIT 294 ITR 32 (AT) UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT

44 SOT 645Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#25000 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10B Section 10C Section 10D Section 271G Section 92C Section 92D

Judgments citing Aztec Software And Technology vs ACIT 294 ITR 32 (AT) UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Parishi Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh SanghaviFor Respondent: 20/08/2024

Section 271GSection 92Section 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5th floor, Piramal Chamber, CC2091 to CC 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAJFP 2118 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh Sanghavi : Mrs. Pradnya R. Gholap, Sr. DR Revenue by : 20/08/2024 Date of Hearing : 22/10/2024 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by…

Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4062/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 15 Dsidc, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-10(2), Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg2938H Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated Xx.02.2019 Passed By The Ao U/S 254/143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ility is to be done at segmental level and not at entity level; (vii) Following decision in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Twinkle Diamond [2011] 10 laxmann.com 294/45 SOT 115 (URO) (Mum.) etc. the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Golawala Diamonds [2011] 44 SOT 645 wherein it had been held that net margin realized from the transaction or class of transactions is to be compared and not entity level margin; (viii) Marubeni India (P) Ltd. [20011-THI-36-ITAT-Del- TP] wherein it had been held that the profit of a particular operation cannot be clubbed with the earning of any other revenue stream; (ix) Ranbaxy Lab…

Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4634/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., Vs Dcit, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, Circle-3(1), 124, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 (Pan: Aaacc5029L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Ms Pushpa Sharma, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Order

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Ms Pushpa Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ntation was on the assessee which the assessee had failed to do. Reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents:- Aztec Software And Technology vs ACIT 294 ITR 32 (AT) UCB India (P) Limited Vs. ACIT (2009) 121 ITD 131, ACIT Vs. Golawala Diamonds 44 SOT 645 CA Computer Associates India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT- order dated 28.1.2010 of ITAT, Mumbai. 4.1 It was further submitted that the transactions accepted in the hands of the AE would not necessarily mean that ALP has been accepted in the case of the assessee. It was submitted that benchmarking has to be done separately in both the cases. Ld. CIT DR…