SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

x 5%]. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Appellant is before us. 21.2. Since the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2013- 14 were identical to the grounds raised in the appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13, both the sides adopted the submissions made in relation to appeal

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

24 of the act and upheld the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the income of the above properties on all other issues. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 058. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of sale proceeds of ₹ 109,174,422/– for assessment year

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

24 of the act and upheld the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the income of the above properties on all other issues. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 058. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of sale proceeds of ₹ 109,174,422/– for assessment year

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

24 of the act and upheld the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the income of the above properties on all other issues. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 058. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of sale proceeds of ₹ 109,174,422/– for assessment year

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

24 of the act and upheld the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the income of the above properties on all other issues. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 058. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of sale proceeds of ₹ 109,174,422/– for assessment year

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

24 of the act and upheld the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the income of the above properties on all other issues. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 058. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of sale proceeds of ₹ 109,174,422/– for assessment year

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

24 of the act and upheld the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the income of the above properties on all other issues. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 058. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of sale proceeds of ₹ 109,174,422/– for assessment year

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

24 of the act and upheld the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the income of the above properties on all other issues. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 058. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of sale proceeds of ₹ 109,174,422/– for assessment year

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

X of the Act contained provisions giving authority to the officers for undertaking the transfer pricing exercise in relation to international or specified domestic transactions with associated enterprises. Similarly, according to him, only if the purchases from related parties are found to be inflated then the excess & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is upheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by the assessee. 16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELSPUN STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Purchase Agreement [in\nshort 'SPA'] dated 29.03.2017, WEPL sold the entire OCPS of Rs.686\ncrores (375 + 305.20 +5.40) held in WECL to SIPPL for an aggregate\nconsideration of Rs.300 crores. It is noted that, the sale consideration\nagreed upon was based on the valuation report obtained from a\nmerchant banker. Later on, in April/May 2019, WECL (which was\nnow owned

DCIT- CC5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

24,62,91,946\n9. Denial of deduction u/s \n80IC in relation to sale of \nscrap\n- - 14,44,415 30,66,826 15,86,568\n10. Disallowance of ESOP \nexpenses\n- - 31,05,222 10,12,686 -\n11. Exclusion of excise \nsubsidy received under the \nIndustrial Scheme by way \nof capital receipt

DY.CIT CC -5(2) CENT. RG. -5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

24,62,91,946\n9.\nDenial of deduction u/s\n80IC in relation to sale of\nscrap\n- - 14,44,415 30,66,826 15,86,568\n10.\nDisallowance of ESOP\nexpenses\n- - 31,05,222 10,12,686 -\n11.\nExclusion of excise\nsubsidy received under the\nIndustrial Scheme by way\nof capital receipt

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

24,62,91,946\n9. Denial of deduction u/s\n80IC in relation to sale of\nscrap\n- - 14,44,415 30,66,826 15,86,568\n10. Disallowance of ESOP\nexpenses\n- - 31,05,222 10,12,686 -\n11. Exclusion of excise\nsubsidy received under the\nIndustrial Scheme by way\nof capital receipt

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

24,62,91,946\n9. Denial of deduction u/s\n80IC in relation to sale of\nscrap\n- - 14,44,415 30,66,826 15,86,568\n10. Disallowance of ESOP\nexpenses\n- - 31,05,222 10,12,686 -\n11. Exclusion of excise\nsubsidy received under the\nIndustrial Scheme by way\nof capital receipt

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

X of the Act contained provisions giving\nauthority to the officers for undertaking the transfer pricing exercise in\nrelation to international or specified domestic transactions with\nassociated enterprises. Similarly, according to him, only if the\npurchases from related parties are found to be inflated then the excess\n33\nITA No.879 to 883/M/2021\n& Others (Assessee & Revenue)\nA.Y