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

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

bogus purchases and has never retracted such admission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the impugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has not been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

RUBICON RESEARCH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUBICON RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

92C has been adopted then TP adjustment is not sustainable. II. That the R&D and Other Support Services Are Already Included in the Cost Base under TNMM: Separate Adjustment Leads to Double Taxation 1. The Assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method ("MAM") for benchmarking its international transactions. The international transactions included: • Export

ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT (OSD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 222/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 223/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) Advance Power Display System Ltd. Unit No.6, Multistoried Building, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan: Aaaca-5970-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Jcit (Osd), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai . अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate With Shri Nishit Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sathya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A) ’] For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, Respectively. Both The Impugned Order Are Of Even Date I.E. 15/11/2018. Since, Identical Issues Are Involved In 2

section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] would not be available. The ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that the TPO has not pointed any defect in the TP study before disturbing benchmarking of the transaction by the assessee. The TPO has not specified as to which method as specified u/s.92C

ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT (OSD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 222/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 223/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) Advance Power Display System Ltd. Unit No.6, Multistoried Building, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan: Aaaca-5970-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Jcit (Osd), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai . अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate With Shri Nishit Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sathya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A) ’] For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, Respectively. Both The Impugned Order Are Of Even Date I.E. 15/11/2018. Since, Identical Issues Are Involved In 2

section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] would not be available. The ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that the TPO has not pointed any defect in the TP study before disturbing benchmarking of the transaction by the assessee. The TPO has not specified as to which method as specified u/s.92C

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

bogus or the purchases were found to be nongenuine. There may be many reasons that notices u/s 133 (6) remained unserved or not responded to. But, merely that fact, cannot result into disallowance. Further, it is not the case of the assessee that they have not deducted tax at source on payment made to most of the parties. To support

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

bogus or the purchases were found to be nongenuine. There may be many reasons that notices u/s 133 (6) remained unserved or not responded to. But, merely that fact, cannot result into disallowance. Further, it is not the case of the assessee that they have not deducted tax at source on payment made to most of the parties. To support

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

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT./DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMETNT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 12,45,12,834/- and disallowance of R & D expenditure claimed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs. 21,20,74,989/-. Aggrieved by the assessee filed objection before the ld. DRP. The ld. DRP passed order u/s 144C(5) of the Act related to TPO adjustment direction was made and upheld

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

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

bogus, as no relevant services were rendered by such companies. He further submitted that, as regards additions towards transfer pricing adjustments, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective of provisions of Sec. ITA Nos. 6267 to 6269/Mum/2018 & CO Nos. 243 to 245/Mum/2019 92C of the Act, even though the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars

VIRAJ PROFILES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

purchase goods from the same parties in the subsequent Assessment Years. Considering the reputation and quantum of transaction and no material brought on record by the revenue that these are bogus or the parties are non-existing, we are inclined to accept the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 44. In the result

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

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 company is an investment holding company which has invested in various companies through its wholly owned subsidiary Sterling Global Oil Resources Pvt Ltd (SGPL, in short) based in Mauritius

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

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 company is an investment holding company which has invested in various companies through its wholly owned subsidiary Sterling Global Oil Resources Pvt Ltd (SGPL, in short) based in Mauritius

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

92C(3) of the Ad were satisfied before making an adjustment to the total income of the Appellant. 13. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in not demonstrating the motive the Appellant to shift profits outside of India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions, either at the stage of invoking or initiating the assessment

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

92C(3) of the Ad were satisfied before making an adjustment to the total income of the Appellant. 13. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in not demonstrating the motive the Appellant to shift profits outside of India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions, either at the stage of invoking or initiating the assessment

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

92C(3) of the Ad were satisfied before making an adjustment to the total income of the Appellant. 13. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in not demonstrating the motive the Appellant to shift profits outside of India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions, either at the stage of invoking or initiating the assessment

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

92C(3) of the Ad were satisfied before making an adjustment to the total income of the Appellant. 13. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in not demonstrating the motive the Appellant to shift profits outside of India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions, either at the stage of invoking or initiating the assessment