DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 92B of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that provision of corporate guarantee is primarily a shareholder service and has no bearings on the profits, income, losses or assets of associated enterprise. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in facts

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 92B of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that provision of corporate guarantee is primarily a shareholder service and has no bearings on the profits, income, losses or assets of associated enterprise. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in facts

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 92B of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that provision of corporate guarantee is primarily a shareholder service and has no bearings on the profits, income, losses or assets of associated enterprise. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in facts

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 92B of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that provision of corporate guarantee is primarily a shareholder service and has no bearings on the profits, income, losses or assets of associated enterprise. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in facts

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 92B of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that provision of corporate guarantee is primarily a shareholder service and has no bearings on the profits, income, losses or assets of associated enterprise. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in facts

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 92B of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that provision of corporate guarantee is primarily a shareholder service and has no bearings on the profits, income, losses or assets of associated enterprise. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in facts

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 92B of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that provision of corporate guarantee is primarily a shareholder service and has no bearings on the profits, income, losses or assets of associated enterprise. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in facts

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC-46, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 92B of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that provision of corporate guarantee is primarily a shareholder service and has no bearings on the profits, income, losses or assets of associated enterprise. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in facts

M/S ROSY BLUE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 92B of the Act. Further, as rightly observed by learned first appellate authority, the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2013] 34 Taxman.com 19 (Mum.) while negating identical contention made by the assessee has held that provision of corporate guarantee is an international transaction. The aforesaid decision of the Co–ordinate Bench has also been

ROSY BLUE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 46 (NOW DCIT - CC -8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 92B of the Act. Further, as rightly observed by learned first appellate authority, the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2013] 34 Taxman.com 19 (Mum.) while negating identical contention made by the assessee has held that provision of corporate guarantee is an international transaction. The aforesaid decision of the Co-ordinate Bench has also been

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -42), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

bogus purchase amounting to Rs.28,444/-.\n6. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated\n30.03.2016 had partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.\n7.\nBoth the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before us challenging the\norder of the ld. CIT(A).\n8.\nGround

ASSOCIATED CAPSULES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 42, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

SECTION 92 OF THE ACT 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer (AO") and Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") in benchmarking "corporate guarantee" given to a bank on behalf of the Appellant's subsidiary as an "international transaction" u/s 92B

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

bogus purchases while the assessee has challenged the part confirmation of addition to the extent of Rs. 1,13,18,852/- in ground no 3 and 4 of its appeal. 32. The facts in brief are that the assessee company has made purchases of steel from M/s Krishna Structure Steels Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly claimed the same as materials purchased

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

bogus purchases while the assessee has challenged the part confirmation of addition to the extent of Rs. 1,13,18,852/- in ground no 3 and 4 of its appeal. 32. The facts in brief are that the assessee company has made purchases of steel from M/s Krishna Structure Steels Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly claimed the same as materials purchased

SHRENUJ GEMS & JEWELLERY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd., Plot No.Gj-09, Seepz++, Marol Industrial Area, Seepz-Sez, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400096 Pan:Aajcs4265M ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer 8(3)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent

Bogus Purchase of Rs. 2,813 10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming rejection by the assessing officer of purchase of consumables of Rs. 2,813 from G. M. International in a routine manner simply because the name of the vendor appeared in the list of "suspicious Dealers" who had issued false bills without delivery

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-section (1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per section 92CA(3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior

GAMMON INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-section (1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per section 92CA(3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior

ABOTT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shric.N.Prasad, Jm & Shrim.Balaganesh, Am

purchase orders are placed with the supplying AEs or the regional distribution center at Singapore. AHPL is responsible for clearing the healthcare products through customs and completing related formalities. As regards imports of reagents, AHPL does not hold large quantity of healthcare products as these products have short shelf life. The Shipments are received on weekly basis while 'the lead

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

purchase of another depreciable asset as provided in Section 50 13 Mcnally Bharat Kolkata ITAT 100/Kol/2011 Retention money 41 to 43 Engineering Co. Ltd. 14 Delhi Gymkhana Delhi ITAT 3585/Del/2006 Income exempt as per 13 Club Ltd. doctrine of mutuality 15 Goldgerg Finance Mumbai ITAT 7496/Mum/2013 Share from AOP which 11 Pvt. Ltd. was not taxable under normal provisions