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

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

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 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

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 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

92C(3) for the corporate guarantees provided by the\nAppellant and thereby making an addition of notional guarantee fee at the rate of 0.7% on the\navetailed guarantee amount.\n2\nThe Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to delete the Arm's length\nadjustment made in the form of income from guarantee commission\nGROUND NO. III ADDITION

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

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

92C(3) for the corporate guarantees provided by the Appellant and thereby making an addition of notional guarantee fee at the rate of 0.7% on the availed guarantee amount. 2 The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to delete the Arm's length adjustment made in the form of income from guarantee commission GROUND NO. III ADDITION

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

bogus to dislodge the 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 claim of exemption made by the assessee. Contention of the assessee that reopening of assessment is nothing but merely a change of opinion on the existing facts was accepted by the ld. CIT(A) in absence of any new tangible material brought on record

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

bogus to dislodge the 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 claim of exemption made by the assessee. Contention of the assessee that reopening of assessment is nothing but merely a change of opinion on the existing facts was accepted by the ld. CIT(A) in absence of any new tangible material brought on record

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

bogus to dislodge the 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 claim of exemption made by the assessee. Contention of the assessee that reopening of assessment is nothing but merely a change of opinion on the existing facts was accepted by the ld. CIT(A) in absence of any new tangible material brought on record