ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

92B and thereafter directing the AO to make addition on account of risk involved in giving guarantee on loans advanced to the AE applying the rate of 0.5%. The Appellant prays that the impugned direction of the CIT(A) be deleted. GROUND NO. 2: ADDITION OF INCREMENTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF CONVERSION OF CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK

DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

92B and thereafter directing the AO to make addition on account of risk involved in giving guarantee on loans advanced to the AE applying the rate of 0.5%. The Appellant prays that the impugned direction of the CIT(A) be deleted. GROUND NO. 2: ADDITION OF INCREMENTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF CONVERSION OF CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

92B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, is a very I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 24 of 56 brief but inclusive and broad definition to the effect that "'transaction' includes a series of transactions, an arrangement or an event" [See Section 247(1) of the Canadian Income-tax Act, 1985; http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-3.3/page-419.html#h-156]

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

92B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, is a very I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 24 of 56 brief but inclusive and broad definition to the effect that "'transaction' includes a series of transactions, an arrangement or an event" [See Section 247(1) of the Canadian Income-tax Act, 1985; http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-3.3/page-419.html#h-156]

ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gains under section 48 of the Act, the Appellant claimed a loss of Rs. 20,49,85,151 (on account of exchange fluctuation and indexation of cost). 6. The TPO passed an order dated 13 January 2014 under section 92CA(3) of the Act holding as under: • The provisions of Chapter- X are applicable as Explanation to section 92B

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

BHARATKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. ASHOKKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

BHARTKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

PRUDENTIAL PROCESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1274/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Co No. 102/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2131/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prudential Process Management The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Services India Private Limited, Tax, Range-10(3), बनाम/ Prudential Centre Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Prudential Process Management Tax, Range-10(3), Services India Private Limited, बनाम/ Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Prudential Centre Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Percy J. Pardiwala/ Assessee By Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar/ Shri V. Jenardhanan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.12.2017 & 23.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 92B. It is further the fact gathered by TPO from public domain and as such not disputed by the assessee that the resultant saving of £60 million per year by 2010 to Prudential UK and no portion of such benefit is there to assessee. 2.2.24 In view of detailed discussion above, we are satisfied that the above transaction

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium are undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under section 56(2)(viib) or the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO,. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain on sale of investment. The assessee filed application under section 154 before the Assessing Officer for rectification of order. The assessee also raised ground of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to dispose the application of the assessee filed under section 154 in accordance with law. However, the Assessing Officer

ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY DYEING & MFG CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain on sale of investment. The assessee filed application under section 154 before the Assessing Officer for rectification of order. The assessee also raised ground of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to dispose the application of the assessee filed under section 154 in accordance with law. However, the Assessing Officer

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

92B, we are inclined to accept partial finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer that it is a quasi-capital and its cost has to be benchmarked in the international market. In the given case, the Transfer Pricing Officer has already observed that the cost of capital of the assessee is at 9.945% based on the Balance Sheet submitted

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

gains of business or profession” or “Income from other sources”, shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rama Bai v. CIT (181 ITR 400) has held that arrears of interest computed on delayed or enhanced compensation shall be taxable

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

gains of business or profession” or “Income from other sources”, shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rama Bai v. CIT (181 ITR 400) has held that arrears of interest computed on delayed or enhanced compensation shall be taxable