MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

price. Under such circumstances, the assessee trust is not in a position to earn maximum profits. Thus, it could be safely said that certainly assessee trust is not in the business of trading of shares. The shares held by the assessee trust cannot be categorised as „stock- in-trade‟ of the assessee trust. 5.14. There is one more angle

ISARC-14/2010-11 TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Isarc 14/2010-11 Vs. Ito 23(1)(2), Trust Room No.108, C-11, G Block, Sme Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Development Centre Grant Road, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8646N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ito 23(1)(2), Vs. M/S. Isarc 14/2010-11 Room No.108, Trust Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road C-11, G Block, Sme Grant Road, Development Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8646N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Isarc-12/2010-11 Vs. Ito 23(1)(2), Trust Room No.108, C-11, G Block, Sme Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Development Centre Grant Road, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8644Q Isarc Sidbi 2/2009-10 Trust

charitable trusts where the investors name and beneficial interest are not explicitly known on the date of its creation - such information becoming available only when the funds starts accepting contribution from investors, have to be treated as falling within section 164 (1) of the Act and the fund should be taxed in respect of the income received on behalf

DDIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT LYONNAIS (THROUGH THERI SUCCESSOR CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK ( FORMERLY CALYON BANK), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing adjustment with regard to the activities in question. Ld. Representative for the assessee also made a statement at Bar that in the earlier assessment year of 2002-03 also such adjustment was made to the returned income, but the Assessing Officer did not levy any penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was, therefore, canvassed

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

DEUTSCHE INDIA PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS 'DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing adjustment. Accordingly, in view of the above, grounds no.1 and 2 raised in assessee’s appeal are dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The issue arising in Corporate Tax grounds no.(a) and (b), raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the denial of deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act on Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) expenses

DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ERA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

transfer pricing\nadjustment of Rs.116.92 Crore are recorded at page No. 8 to 19 of order of\nId CIT(A). The Id CIT(A) on considering the submissions of assessee allowed\nfull relief to the assessee on this issue. The Id CIT(A) while allowing relief to\nthe assessee held that this issue is covered in favour of assessee

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA amounting to Rs.11,26,24,233/-. In addition, disallowances were made as follows: Disallowance under section 80G: Rs. 2,05,58,406/- Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets: Rs.12,42,89,747/- Being aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR argued and filed

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing order passed u/s 92CA(3) dt. 31/10/2017. (para no.6 of the order) that the TPO had examined in detail the transaction of Investment in the NCCPS in the above mentioned Associate Enterprise. After elaborate discussion in the order, TPO came to the conclusion that there was an arrangement, understanding between Assesse company and AE, whereby the loan transaction

SOLA HAKIM MEDICAL RESEARCH TRUST, MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Sola Hakim Medical Vs. The Director Of Income- Research Trust Tax(Exemption), Mumbai 9, Hamton Court Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aacts2195J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

charitable purposes for the previous year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2008 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2009; and (b) Approved under the said clause (vi) for the previous year beginning on the 1st day of April 2008 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2009) 5. We find that

ACIT 23(3), MUMBAI vs. VRNAN P.TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

charitable initiatives, which are unanimously recommended by the Beneficiaries. It is evident from the above, that it is the utilization of the Trust corpus and the income arising therefrom, for the benefit of the children of the Settlors, i.e., the beneficiaries of the Trust, which is the prime objective of the assessee Trust. By such utilization of the Trust corpus

SOU DWARKABAI SHASTRI PATWARDHAN TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2025-26

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed price by more

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he\noriginally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he\nhas received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if,\nin the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed\nprice by more

PASHUPATI CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

Pricing Officer, as\nthe case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is\nprejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal\n[Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or\nCommissioner,—\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should\nhave been made

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) has passed the order on 27 January 2022 after due consideration of the limitation period of 31 March 2022 as prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153 of the Act. Without prejudice to the above Grounds, Grounds of appeal in respect of the additions made by the learned AO are as under: Allowability of deduction under