M/S. SP IMPERIAL STAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 3(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

Section 92A(2)(c) of the Act, only Credit Opportunities II PTE Limited shall be deemed to be an Associated Enterprise (AE) and the other 2 enterprises have been wrongly treated as AEs, where they do not exceed the prescribed limit of 51% as per the provisions and the same would fall under the category of independent enterprises

DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Daga Global Chemicals D C I T - 12(2)(1) P. Ltd. Room No. 223/262 101, Mahek Plaza 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Off L.T. Road, Maharashtra M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Nagar Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400092 Pan – Aaacd2233M Appellant Respondent D C I T - 12(2)(1) M/S. Daga Global Chemicals Room No. 223/262 P. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 101, Mahek Plaza Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Off L.T. Road, Maharashtra Nagar Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400092 Appellant Respondent

TDS, entire amount of commission paid is disallowed under section 40(a)(i). 3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee to carry forward of long term capital loss of Rs.84,46,103/- on account of loss arose merely investment

ASST CIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AECO INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhasstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1(1)(1) 579, Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Appellant M.K.Road Mumbai- 400 020 V/S

TDS) under provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was deposited into Government Treasury on or before due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 i.e. 30-11-2011 for AY 2011-12, so as not to attract provisions of Section 40(a)ia) of the Income

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

TDS, therefore, we are of the opinion that, so far as, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act are concerned, the ld. Assessing Officer was justifiably within the parameter of the law to reopen the assessment, therefore, we affirm the stand of the ld. First Appellate Authority, resulting into dismissal of the impugned ground raised

REKHABEN SHARADKUMAR MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. WARD 42(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrekhaben Sharadkumar Vs Ito Ward 42(1)(4) Mehta Room No.733, Kautilya Bhawan, 211 Tiwari Bhawan, S Modi Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067 Pan:Ahppm8680G Appellant Respondent

TDS U/s 92A of the Act. However the assesse has not filed the return of Income for the A.Y. 2012-13. Hence assesse's profiling could not be ascertained. These transactions are required to be verified. 4 Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta 3. As such, income chargeable to tax to the tune of 91,20,342/- has escaped assessment for A.Y-

DCIT CC- 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 92A\nof the Act. In such cases the Assessing Officer will decide\nwhether an AOP is formed or not keeping in view the relevant\nprovisions of the Act and judicial jurisprudence on this issue.\n6. The above may be brought to the notice of all for necessary\ncompliance\" (Emphasis supplied)\n18. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT Circular

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed,\nexcept for one ground no

Section 92A\nof the Act. In such cases the Assessing Officer will decide\nwhether an AOP is formed or not keeping in view the relevant\nprovisions of the Act and judicial jurisprudence on this issue.\n6. The above may be brought to the notice of all for necessary\ncompliance\" (Emphasis supplied)\n18. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT Circular

DCIT CC - 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed,\nexcept for one ground no

Section 92A\nof the Act. In such cases the Assessing Officer will decide\nwhether an AOP is formed or not keeping in view the relevant\nprovisions of the Act and judicial jurisprudence on this issue.\n6. The above may be brought to the notice of all for necessary\ncompliance\" (Emphasis supplied)\n18. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT Circular

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 92A\nof the Act. In such cases the Assessing Officer will decide\nwhether an AOP is formed or not keeping in view the relevant\nprovisions of the Act and judicial jurisprudence on this issue.\n6. The above may be brought to the notice of all for necessary\ncompliance\" (Emphasis supplied)\n18. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT Circular

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS 2 1, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed,\nexcept for one ground no

Section 92A\nof the Act. In such cases the Assessing Officer will decide\nwhether an AOP is formed or not keeping in view the relevant\nprovisions of the Act and judicial jurisprudence on this issue.\n6. The above may be brought to the notice of all for necessary\ncompliance\" (Emphasis supplied)\n18. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT Circular

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

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

Section 92A of the Act. In such cases the Assessing Officer will decide whether an AOP is formed or not keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Act and judicial jurisprudence on this issue. 6. The above may be brought to the notice of all for necessary compliance" (Emphasis supplied) 18. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT Circular

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

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

92A of the Act. The term\n\"international transaction” has been defined in section 92B of the Act as a\ntransaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of\nthem are non-residents. The relevant provisions of section 92B of the Act are\nreproduced as under:-\n\"92B. (1) For the purposes of this section and sections

CAPGEMENI BUSINESS SERVICES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Capgemini Business Assistant Commissioner Of Services (India) Ltd., Income Tax-1(2), Gate No.4, Unit 19, Mumbai Godrej Industries Complex, Vs. Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aabci 1046A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golvala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri A.A. Khan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2016 O R D E R

92A(2)(a) of the Act for the purpose of constituting AE; b. disregarding the internal comparability analysis between the Appellant's international transactions with overseas Unilever group entities for the period: - prior to the acquisition of Appellant's shareholding by Capgemini Group; and - post such acquisition. c. disregarding the Appellant's contemporaneous TP documentation and conducting his own comparability

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Sections 92, 92A to 92F of the Act is considered, then it has to be reckoned as sufficient compliance by the assessee for the arm's length standard prescribed by the Indian transfer pricing regulations. Without prejudice he submitted that during the transfer pricing assessment proceedings of the Indian AEs for the same year under consideration following upward adjustment have

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Sections 92, 92A to 92F of the Act is considered, then it has to be reckoned as sufficient compliance by the assessee for the arm's length standard prescribed by the Indian transfer pricing regulations. Without prejudice he submitted that during the transfer pricing assessment proceedings of the Indian AEs for the same year under consideration following upward adjustment have

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Sections 92, 92A to 92F of the Act is considered, then it has to be reckoned as sufficient compliance by the assessee for the arm's length standard prescribed by the Indian transfer pricing regulations. Without prejudice he submitted that during the transfer pricing assessment proceedings of the Indian AEs for the same year under consideration following upward adjustment have

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

section 132(4) of the Act stated that cash was received from Mr. Parag Vora. Considering these evidences, the Assessing Officer considered all the purchases made from Krishna Structure Pvt. Ltd as bogus and made disallowance under section 37 of the Act as under

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC -6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

section 132(4) of the Act stated that cash was received from Mr. Parag Vora. Considering these evidences, the Assessing Officer considered all the purchases made from Krishna Structure Pvt. Ltd as bogus and made disallowance under section 37 of the Act as under