VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12

144C(5) vide order dated 23.12.15. In various grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised following issues: i) Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.46,94,26,016/- in respect of ‘Guarantee Commission’ and ‘Fee for Letter of Undertaking’ (Ground No.1.1 to 1.4). ii) Disallowance of sum of Rs.110,33,96,481/- made under section 14A read with rule 8D (Ground No.2.1

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(13)/(5) of the Act, completed the assessment, wherein a demand of Rs 297,26,54,239 was raised, however, no adverse observations/ additions was made with respect to the rights issue. 2.3 Subsequent to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh („learned CIT‟) passed an order under Section 263 of the Act, directing the learned

DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

144C(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17, all the assessment orders were passed on 23/01/2019. 2. Considering the appeal record we find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a combined order related to A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesseeonly related to A.Ys

LINTAS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

Section 144C (5) of the Act on 11thSeptember 2018. The ground no.1 with respect to the adjustment on account of payment of intra group services, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel followed its own direction in assessee‟s case for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 and upheld the adjustment proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. With respect

LINTAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI , DELHI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

Section 144C (5) of the Act on 11thSeptember 2018. The ground no.1 with respect to the adjustment on account of payment of intra group services, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel followed its own direction in assessee‟s case for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 and upheld the adjustment proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. With respect

ATOMSTROYEXPORT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)CIRCLE -1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') for the AY 2020-21. The assessee raised the following grounds: “Taxability of payment received under Offshore Supply Contracts 1) The learned DCIT/DRP erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 3267,27,22,775 received by the appellant company from the Offshore Supply Contracts was taxable

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

STERLING OIL RESOURCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C (5) of the Act] grossly erred, in law and in facts, in not allowing the benefit of arm's length range of +/- 5% provided in proviso to sec 92C(2) of the Act for computing the transfer pricing adjustment.” 3. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts, and developments leading to this dispute before us, are like this. The assessee

ITO 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. STERLING OIL RESOURCES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C (5) of the Act] grossly erred, in law and in facts, in not allowing the benefit of arm's length range of +/- 5% provided in proviso to sec 92C(2) of the Act for computing the transfer pricing adjustment.” 3. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts, and developments leading to this dispute before us, are like this. The assessee

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Ground raised by the assessee on this issue is partly allowed. 9. The second grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. 10. Briefly stated the facts are that, the Assessing Officer in the course

DCIT-14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TITAN LABORATORIES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Ground raised by the assessee on this issue is partly allowed. 9. The second grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. 10. Briefly stated the facts are that, the Assessing Officer in the course

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Ground raised by the assessee on this issue is partly allowed. 9. The second grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. 10. Briefly stated the facts are that, the Assessing Officer in the course

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

144C(13), depreciation was disallowed on certain unverified purchases and expenses which were capitalized in the books of accounts. The AO called on the assessee to furnish the depreciation on the written down value of the disallowed purchases for the year under consideration and accordingly disallowed the depreciation on said unverified purchases for the AY 2013-14 also

ASSTT. CIT -CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LUPIN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

144C(13), depreciation was disallowed on certain unverified purchases and expenses which were capitalized in the books of accounts. The AO called on the assessee to furnish the depreciation on the written down value of the disallowed purchases for the year under consideration and accordingly disallowed the depreciation on said unverified purchases for the AY 2013-14 also