MARICO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR-35,, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation. Allocation of finance cost to undertakings eligible for deduction under section 80IB 18. During the year under consideration the assessee has incurred total finance charges of Rs. 2,29,74,317/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,89,64,156/- is allocated to the undertakings in Dehradun, Goa, Pondicherry and Daman. The AO noticed that the balance

M/S. MARICO LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-35, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation. Allocation of finance cost to undertakings eligible for deduction under section 80IB 18. During the year under consideration the assessee has incurred total finance charges of Rs. 2,29,74,317/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,89,64,156/- is allocated to the undertakings in Dehradun, Goa, Pondicherry and Daman. The AO noticed that the balance

THE ACIT CC-35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation. Allocation of finance cost to undertakings eligible for deduction under section 80IB 18. During the year under consideration the assessee has incurred total finance charges of Rs. 2,29,74,317/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,89,64,156/- is allocated to the undertakings in Dehradun, Goa, Pondicherry and Daman. The AO noticed that the balance

MISTRY CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 41, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

92E for the first time for the assessment year 2013-14 and our office staffs were busy for finalization of the accounts and audit for the assessment year 2013-14. That, I, alongwith my family members am carrying on various business entities, known commonly as Mistry Group." 3 3. When this was pointed out to the learned CIT Departmental Representative

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED -INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

92E of the Income-tax Act 1961. The assessee had also filed the\ntax audit report in form No. 3CA and 3CD u/s.44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\nThe case was selected for scrutiny assessment and order under section 143(3)\nrws 144C(3) was passed on 03.02.2017, wherein the AO assessed the income

BHAVANI GEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -5, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

depreciation and written down value of the goodwill for carry forward. Therefore the issue that arises is whether the failure of the learned assessing officer to make a reference to the learned transfer pricing officer can make the order passed by the learned assessing officer is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more\nassociated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature\nof purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises

L'OREAL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

92E ,"international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents; in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises

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

92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai-tribunal

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. ()

92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai-tribunal

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. ()

92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai-tribunal

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. ()

92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai-tribunal

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 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. ()

92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai-tribunal

DY.CIT 7(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

depreciation on unused plant and machinery of ₹1,73,829/- on unused plant and machinery of -. Further, the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the stment and added further sum of ₹36,86,308/- transfer pricing adjustment

ACIT 5(1), MUMBAI vs. CADBURY INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

92E ,"international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents; in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises

AROMA ORGANICS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,WD- 14-(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Aroma Organics Limited, 106-110, Krishna Bhavan Annex, Income Tax Officer-14(1)(2), 22/B.S.D. Marg, Govandi, Mumbai Mumbai Vs. [Pan : Aaaca5370J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been under assessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

92E of the Income Tax Act. 7. Under the circumstances the directions of the Learned PCIT are bad in law and against the principals of natural justice, equity and fairness. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more\nassociated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature\nof purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more associated\nenterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of\npurchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises