CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds

261 ITR 258High Court2003#2301 most cited

What is CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds authority for?

The assessee bears the initial burden to maintain and produce authentic documentation under Section 92D and Rule 10D to justify transactions with related parties, especially concerning the arm's length price for such transactions under Section 40A(2)(b). The discharge of this statutory obligation to maintain accurate data is a mandatory requirement of law.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds · Shatrunjay Diamonds 261 ITR 258 · Section 92D · Rule 10D · transfer pricing documentation · arm's length price · assessee burden of proof · Section 40A(2)(b) · mandatory documentation · related party transactions · penalty Section 271G · specified domestic transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 271GSection 10DSection 92DSection 143(3)Section 273BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92CASection 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 92d(3)section 271gsection 40a(2)(a)section 92dlegal expensesclosely held companyarms length pricemanagement feesspecified domestic transactionsection 40a(2)(b)cup methodmaximum marginal rate

Judgments citing CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds

ACIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DHARMANANDAN DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3615/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Dharmanandan Diamonds Income Tax – 5(1)(1) बनाम Pvt. Ltd., Fc 7081 7082, Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, G- Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 020, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd6676J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, (CIT-DR)
Section 271GSection 92Section 92D

…) without specifying the cause of such non-compliance OR demonstrating how the same was reasonable.” (v) “Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in ignoring the ratio laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258) holding that the initial burden was cast upon the assessee?” (vi) “The Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty for the reason that noadjustment was made to the ALP, failing to note that by not producing the material documents necessary to determine the ALP under any of the prescribed methods u/s. 92 C (1) of the Act, the assessee effectively…

DCIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARJAV DIAMONDS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5610/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 5(1)(1) Cc, 9010A Bharat Diamond Bourse, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Circle 5(1)(1), R.No.568, Aaykar Mumbai-400051. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Fenil Bhat Respondent By : Dr. K. R. Subhash, (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(I) "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 16,13,66,235/-Levied U/S 271G Of The It Act, 1961 When The Statutory Requirement Of Rule 10B(1)(E), Stating The Methodology For Benchmarking Transactions Using Tnmm, States That The Net Profit Margin From The Controlled International Transaction & The Uncontrolled International Transactions Should Be Separately Provided By The Assessee & Their Statutory Requirement Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Assessee?" Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Fenil BhatFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)
Section 250Section 271GSection 92C

…f information to justify TNMM for benchmarking transactions?" (v) "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court laid down in the case of Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258) which dealt with similar case of an assessee engaged in trading of wholesale diamonds, in which it was held that discharge of statutory obligation to maintain authentic data accurately was a mandatory requirement of law?" (vi) "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in relying on the judgment in the case…

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2359/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92BSection 92DSection 92D(1)

…r the beneficial clause in section 27. Therefore, assessee cannot take shelter under the beneficial clause in section 273B. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Mumbai High Court in the case of Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258; 2003) wherein court has held that 'The purpose behind the legislature enacting Section 404 (2) (b) was to provide for shifting of burden on the assessee in cases where the transactions are not at arm's length. The purchases are made by the assessee from its sister concern. In such cases, the intricacies of the transactions are required to be ex…

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2358/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92BSection 92DSection 92D(1)

…r the beneficial clause in section 27. Therefore, assessee cannot take shelter under the beneficial clause in section 273B. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Mumbai High Court in the case of Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258; 2003) wherein court has held that 'The purpose behind the legislature enacting Section 404 (2) (b) was to provide for shifting of burden on the assessee in cases where the transactions are not at arm's length. The purchases are made by the assessee from its sister concern. In such cases, the intricacies of the transactions are required to be ex…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 325/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

…oned paragraphs an amount of Rs.25,76,43,593/- has been determined as excessive payment made to the two companies when compared to the market value of the services rendered by them to the assessee. In this regard, reliance is place on the decision reported in 261 ITR 258 (Mum) in the case of CIT Vs. Shatranjay Diamonds wherein it was held that onus is on the assessee to prove that the price paid is reasonable. In the present case no such proof has been adduced. On the contrary evidences brought on record showed that the amount paid was excessive. Hence, this amount is not allowable as expenditure u/s. 40A(2)(a) o…

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI 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

…ustry came up for decision before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the decision before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the decision before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Shatrunjay Diamonds /261 ITR 258; 2003/ wherein case of CIT v/s. Shatrunjay Diamonds /261 ITR 258; 2003/ wherein case of CIT v/s. Shatrunjay Diamonds /261 ITR 258; 2003/ wherein the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was whether purchases ssue before the Hon'ble High Court was whether purchases ssue before the Hon'ble High Court was whether purchases made by the assessee from a…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LAXMI DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2325/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Laxmi Diamond Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Ew-200, G Block Bharat Diamond 903, Prathistha Bhavan, Old Course, Bandra Kurla Complex, Cgo Complex, M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Churchgate (E), Mumbai-400020 Pan-Aabcl1815G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.A. VaidyalinganFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane(CIT - DR)
Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92D(3)

…prevented the TPO tomade Arm's length determination as recorded by the TP0 in para 6 of the order u/s.92CA(3). 6. Whether on facts & circumstances of case & in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate, the judicial precedents in case of Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258; 2003} in which it is stated ty Hon’able Bombay High Court that the excuse of business practice and assessee's difficulty in maintaining the documents cannot be a base for non-submission of the documents prescribed by the Act for Arm's length determination.” 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is mainly engaged in diamond business relate…

DCIT-5(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S DHARMANANDAN DIAMONDS PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4232/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Dharmanandan Tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fc-7081-82, M.K. Road, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccd 6676 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Rashmikant C. Modi/ Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/05/2022

For Appellant: Rashmikant C. Modi/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 92Section 92DSection 92D(3)

…0D(1) without specifying thae cause of such non- compliance or demonstrating how the same was reasonable. (iv) (b) the Id. CIT(A) was correct in ignoring the ratio laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258) holding that the initial burden was cast upon the assessee. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing of cutting and polished diamond and during the year under consideration carried out international transactions of purchase of cut/polished and rough diamonds and also sale of cut/polished diamo…

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 512/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…tted that in the open market how much cost it would incur for receiving same services as provided by the TACO. The reasonableness of expense is required to be proved by the appellant. The High Court of Bombay in case of CIT vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds reported in 261 ITR 258 has held that: "Section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Excessive or unreasonable payments - Assessment year 1988-89 - Assessee had imported rough diamonds from 'P' of New York (a sister concern of assessee) - Assessing Officer compared prices of diamond imported by assessee from 'P' and from other concerns and found…

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1507/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…tted that in the open market how much cost it would incur for receiving same services as provided by the TACO. The reasonableness of expense is required to be proved by the appellant. The High Court of Bombay in case of CIT vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds reported in 261 ITR 258 has held that: "Section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Excessive or unreasonable payments - Assessment year 1988-89 - Assessee had imported rough diamonds from 'P' of New York (a sister concern of assessee) - Assessing Officer compared prices of diamond imported by assessee from 'P' and from other concerns and found…

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1506/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…tted that in the open market how much cost it would incur for receiving same services as provided by the TACO. The reasonableness of expense is required to be proved by the appellant. The High Court of Bombay in case of CIT vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds reported in 261 ITR 258 has held that: "Section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Excessive or unreasonable payments - Assessment year 1988-89 - Assessee had imported rough diamonds from 'P' of New York (a sister concern of assessee) - Assessing Officer compared prices of diamond imported by assessee from 'P' and from other concerns and found…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREYA LIFE SCIENCES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2884/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mohanlal Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Subramaniyam, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT, M/s. Shreya Life Sciences Central Circle-8(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.656, 301/A, Shreya House, Vs. 6th Floor, Pereira Hill Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (East), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 058 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCS 9890C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Mohanlal Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Vijaykumar Subramaniyam, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Ac…

DY CIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HAR KRISHNA EXPORTS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3109/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Hari Krishna Income-Tax 5(1)(2), Vs. Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 568, 1701, B-Wing, The 5Th Floor, Aayakar Capital Bandra Kurla Bhavan, M.K. Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Despande, D.R
Section 271GSection 92Section 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

…ITA No.3109/Mum/2019 AY. 2013-14 1 Dy. CIT-5(1)(2) Vs. M/s Hari Krishna Exports Pvt. ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Dy. Commissioner of M/s Hari Krishna Income-tax 5(1)(2), Vs. Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 568, 1701, B-Wing, The 5th Floor, Aayakar Capital Bandra Kurla Bhavan, M.K. Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 400 051 PAN No. AACCH8430N (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R Revenue by : Shri Sunil Despande, D.R Date of Hearing : 28/05/2021 Da…

ASST CIT 32(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KAPU GEMS , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stand allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3104/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14
Section 271GSection 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92D

…D(1) without specifying the cause of such non-compliance or demonstrating how the same was reasonable. (iv) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in ignoring the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258) holding that the initial burden was cast upon the assessee? (v) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty for the reason that no adjustment was made to the ALP, failing to note that by not producing the material documents necessary to determine the ALP under any of the prescribed methods u/s 92C(1) of the Act, the assessee effectively preven…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OPUS PROJECTS LTD.,, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5470/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 30Section 40Section 40A

…cidated relies and refers to several earlier judgments including CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 370 (Cal) which was affirmed by Hon Supreme Court in CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 149 (SC) and CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds [2003] 261 ITR 258/128 Taxman 759 (Bom). Similar view has been expressed by Hon. Delhi High Court in Sigma Corpn. India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 795 of 2016, dated 15-2- 2017]. Assessee company as well as sister company, both are assessed to income tax at maximum marginal rate, and, therefore it cannot be said that rent is paid to respondent company at an unr…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPUS PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3939/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 30Section 40Section 40A

…cidated relies and refers to several earlier judgments including CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 370 (Cal) which was affirmed by Hon Supreme Court in CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 149 (SC) and CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds [2003] 261 ITR 258/128 Taxman 759 (Bom). Similar view has been expressed by Hon. Delhi High Court in Sigma Corpn. India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 795 of 2016, dated 15-2- 2017]. Assessee company as well as sister company, both are assessed to income tax at maximum marginal rate, and, therefore it cannot be said that rent is paid to respondent company at an unr…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPUS PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3938/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 30Section 40Section 40A

…cidated relies and refers to several earlier judgments including CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 370 (Cal) which was affirmed by Hon Supreme Court in CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 149 (SC) and CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds [2003] 261 ITR 258/128 Taxman 759 (Bom). Similar view has been expressed by Hon. Delhi High Court in Sigma Corpn. India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 795 of 2016, dated 15-2- 2017]. Assessee company as well as sister company, both are assessed to income tax at maximum marginal rate, and, therefore it cannot be said that rent is paid to respondent company at an unr…

DE DIAMOND ELECTRIC INDIA PVT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE - 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7167/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…substantiate the increase and in failure to do so, the learned Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In support, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT Vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds (2003) 261 ITR 258 wherein it is held that once purchases are made by the assessee from the persons falling under any of the categories under section 40A(2)(b), the burden is upon the assessee to establish the price paid by it is not excessive or unreasonable and it is duty of the assessee to prove and 6 ITA No.7167/Del./2019 discharge its burden by leading proper…

DCIT CIRCLE 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S AMORE JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 85/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Gerald-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

…ctively prevented the TPO to make determination as recorded by the TPO in para 5 of the order u/s 92CA(3). Whether the Id. CIT(A) was correct in ignoring the ratio laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258) holding that the initial burden was cast upon the assessee? iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was right in arriving at the conclusion that the TPO could have tried to work out the gross profits and net profits by averaging the purchase prices and the expenses in proportion of export sales of each one of…

DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARJAV DIAMOND (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1569/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 271GSection 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92D(1)

…nder section 92C(1) r/w sub–section (3) of the Act, the assessee was liable to be visited with penalty under section 271G of the Act. In support he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional high court in case of CIT V/s Shatrunjay Diamonds (2003) 261 ITR 258(Bom). 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the assessee has not only maintained the books of account but various other details for benchmarking the international transaction under TNMM. He submitted, most of the documents/information called for by the TPO was furnished before him in the course of proceedings. He submitted, before…

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3