DCIT -26(1) , MUMBAI vs. SHREYAS BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

TP Act, the provisions of section 45(1) of the Act, read with 2(47)(v) become applicable and transferor (land-owner) is liable to pay capital gains tax on the value of land in the year the JDA was entered into”. Accordingly, it is clear from the view expressed by the CBDT that the above transaction discussed in various

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

method which the company is following. Further, the assessee has made disclosure by way of a note at serial no. 31 in Notes to Financial Statement in relation to the Revaluation Reserve and amount released from the revaluation reserve on credited to profit and loss account and which is read as under: "31. The Company has during the year ended

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

method which the company is following. Further, the assessee has made disclosure by way of a note at serial no. 31 in Notes to Financial Statement in relation to the Revaluation Reserve and amount released from the revaluation reserve on credited to profit and loss account and which is read as under: "31. The Company has during the year ended

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

method which the company is following. Further, the assessee has made disclosure by way of a note at serial no. 31 in Notes to Financial Statement in relation to the Revaluation Reserve and amount released from the revaluation reserve on credited to profit and loss account and which is read as under: "31. The Company has during the year ended

CASTROL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.195/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Castrol India Limited The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Technopolis Knowledge Park Of Income Tax – Range V. Makali Caves Road, Chakala 8(3) Income Tax Office Andheri(East) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400093 M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc4481E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

method to determine the ALP of the said transactions. The approval of SIA adopted by the TPO as basis to make TP adjustment in respect of royalty payment was untenable and even going by the said basis wrongly adopted by the TPO, no TP adjustment in respect of royalty payment was liable to be made. As per the said basis

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

TP addition deserves to be deleted, ii) The TPO has failed to appreciate that the infusion of USD 212,836,000 (Rs.998,79,87,374) was based on an opportunity whereby the entire infusion of capital was to be lent to Arya infrastructure by Hybrid Capital. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that the Appellant should have infused only

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2)2, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital gains on sale of land in terms of Section 50C(2) of the Act based on the reports obtained from DVO in respect of the subject mentioned properties. The assessee is at liberty to make all arguments including seeking relief of the tolerance limit of 5% to 10% variation in sale consideratiuon vis-à-vis the consideration fixed

MSC CREWING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodmsc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 8(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 .... Respondent Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 10(2)(2) R.No.209,Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 Vs. Msc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri N.K.Chand Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11 Order

method based on BBB( - ) rated Corporate Bond from CRISIL Ltd. to benchmark interest rate on a deemed loan/receivables from the AE." 2. "The appellant prays that the order of the DRP on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored". 3. At the time of hearing, it was a common point between the parties that

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Income Tax-3(1)(1) Godrej It Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020

methods prescribed under section 92C to benchmark the international transaction of payment for availing of services. 21. Without prejudice to the above, erred in computing the arm's length price by applying some ad-hoc man hour rate to some ad-hoc number of man hours (so called CUP) which is not in accordance with the transfer pricing regulations prescribed

DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SOLVAY SPECIALITIES INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

method for taking entity level profits. Considering the above deficiencies on part of the assessee during the assessment proceedings, we are of the opinion that the documents presently filed before us constitute additional evidence and they will go into the root of the matter relating to acceptability or otherwise TP study reports. Therefore, we find it very appropriate to admit

STAR TELEVISION ENTERTAINMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

capital gains on transfer of channel “Star World” to “Star International Movies Ltd”, a Hong Kong based company. Aggrieved, the 4 ITA 1813 & 1814/Mum/2014 Star Television Entertainment Ltd & Star Asian Region FZ LLP assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), who confirmed the TPO adjustment as well as the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee

STAR ASIA REGION FZ LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

capital gains on transfer of channel “Star World” to “Star International Movies Ltd”, a Hong Kong based company. Aggrieved, the 4 ITA 1813 & 1814/Mum/2014 Star Television Entertainment Ltd & Star Asian Region FZ LLP assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), who confirmed the TPO adjustment as well as the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee

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)

Gain and Business Income. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he is not pressing these Ms Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. grounds of appeal. Considering the submission of Ld. AR, Ground No. V & VI are dismissed as not pressed. 25. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 6055/Mum/2014

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)

Gain and Business Income. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he is not pressing these Ms Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. grounds of appeal. Considering the submission of Ld. AR, Ground No. V & VI are dismissed as not pressed. 25. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 6055/Mum/2014

ITO-16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. THAKERSHI A. VEERA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negi

method of computing the holding period of the asset and relied heavily on the date of sale agreement ie 6.1.2009 and computed the gains under the head short term capital gains. This gave raise to the dispute / litigation before us. CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee relying heavily on various decisions including the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional

VOLTAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

gains is computed accordingly. It is so directed. The ground is decided accordingly. VOLTAS LIMITED Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 3.4.5 After due consideration of factual matrix as enumerated by us in the preceding paragraphs, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has clinched the issue in correct perspective. Undisputedly

VOLTAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

gains is computed accordingly. It is so directed. The ground is decided accordingly. VOLTAS LIMITED Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 3.4.5 After due consideration of factual matrix as enumerated by us in the preceding paragraphs, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has clinched the issue in correct perspective. Undisputedly

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Capital Gains (LTCG) to the extent of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- and the finance cost disallowed to the extent of Rs. 9,06,801/-. The AO passed the final assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised various grounds and sub-grounds with regard