DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AFCON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

condoned and both the cross-objections are admitted. 3. The appeals and the cross-objections were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. The grievance of the revenue is that, the ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the bank guarantee fee levied by the AO and the assessee

SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in the present appeal is challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs. 14,50,038/- by the AO. 6. In this regard Ld. AR reiterated

DIAMOND DYE-CHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

92D in respect of any person or class of persons". As per this Explanation, Addl. CIT Diamomnd Dye Chem Ltd, Mumbai is not the TPO & hence is not authorised to pass the transfer pricing order u/s 92CA. 3. The Applicant therefore seeks to raise the following additional preliminary ground of appeal as ground no. 1: "1. Re.: Assessment

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TOSHIBA JOHNSON ELEVATORS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay in filing of this appeal by assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee’s case was referred under section 92CA (1) of the Act by the AO to TPO. In view of this reference a notice under section 92CA (2)/92D (3) of the Act was issued