DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

capital in the markets, overall economic development and lev development and level of competition and whether the markets are el of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail. wholesale or retail. 18.1 Ant evaluation of Rule 10B(2) shows that the comparability valuation of Rule 10B(2) shows that the comparability valuation of Rule 10B(2) shows that

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

capital gain to the extent of Rs.3,24,40,774/- He ought not to have done so. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the curtailment of deduction section 80HHC to the following extent: (a) 90% of the following receipts were covered under Explanation

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

capital gain to the extent of Rs.3,24,40,774/- He ought not to have done so. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the curtailment of deduction section 80HHC to the following extent: (a) 90% of the following receipts were covered under Explanation

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Hon'ble Disputed Resolu law, the Hon'ble Disputed Resolution penal has erred in tion penal has erred in confirming

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

capital gains accordingly.\n4.5 The AR submitted that both the transferor (the assessee) and\nthe transferee (Lionheart Shipping Private Limited) were Indian\nresident companies, incorporated and operating in India under\nthe Companies Act, 2013, at the time the transaction was entered\ninto. Therefore, according to the AR, the transaction does not\nqualify as an “international transaction" under section

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

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

2 (1) (1), Mumbai (The Learned TPO) dated 7/1/ 2015 under section 92CA (3) of The Income Tax Act and the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ The ld DRP] dated 9/12/2015. 03. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal “Ground No. A: Transfer Pricing Adjustments – ₹ 26,78,899/- ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

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

2 (1) (1), Mumbai (The Learned TPO) dated 7/1/ 2015 under section 92CA (3) of The Income Tax Act and the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ The ld DRP] dated 9/12/2015. 03. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal “Ground No. A: Transfer Pricing Adjustments – ₹ 26,78,899/- ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

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

2 (1) (1), Mumbai (The Learned TPO) dated 7/1/ 2015 under section 92CA (3) of The Income Tax Act and the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ The ld DRP] dated 9/12/2015. 03. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal “Ground No. A: Transfer Pricing Adjustments – ₹ 26,78,899/- ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

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

2 (1) (1), Mumbai (The Learned TPO) dated 7/1/ 2015 under section 92CA (3) of The Income Tax Act and the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ The ld DRP] dated 9/12/2015. 03. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal “Ground No. A: Transfer Pricing Adjustments – ₹ 26,78,899/- ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains\nderived by the undertaking from the eligible business, and the business of\nleasing out of assets is not one such business as referred to in section 80-\nIA(4) of the Act. The AO further held that the income relating to such sharing\nof infrastructure with other operators is not related to providing\ntelecommunication services by the assessee

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation of NSE membership card u/s. 32(1) of the Act, the same has been submitted

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation of NSE membership card u/s. 32(1) of the Act, the same has been submitted

DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation of NSE membership card u/s. 32(1) of the Act, the same has been submitted

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation of NSE membership card u/s. 32(1) of the Act, the same has been submitted

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation of NSE membership card u/s. 32(1) of the Act, the same has been submitted

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation of NSE membership card u/s. 32(1) of the Act, the same has been submitted

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation of NSE membership card u/s. 32(1) of the Act, the same has been submitted