DCIT CENT. CIR. -6(4), MUMBAI vs. FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

section 271G of I.T. Act, 1961 is itself deleted, other discussed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the 7. issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s decision of this co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs Navinchandra Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 6304/Mum/2016

DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INTERJWEL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

section 271G of I.T. Act, 1961 is itself deleted, other discussed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the 7. issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s decision of this co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs Navinchandra Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 6304/Mum/2016

DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KARP IMPEX P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

section 271G of I.T. Act, 1961 is itself deleted, other discussed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the 7. issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s decision of this co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs Navinchandra Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 6304/Mum/2016

DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN GEMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

section 271G of I.T. Act, 1961 is itself deleted, other discussed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the 7. issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s decision of this co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs Navinchandra Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 6304/Mum/2016

WEST COAST FINE FOODS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,ANDHERI, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13(3)(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowances to arrive at the assessed income of Rs. 11,06,05,110/-. Subsequently the AO issued a show-cause notice initiating penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 271B read as under: “Failure to get accounts audited. 271B. If any person fails to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year

M/S APACE REALTY ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KALYAN

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

271G of the Act. the learned AO ought to have first issued a notice specifying the document or information to be furnished by the Appellant and only if the Appellant did not comply with such notice could the question of levying penalty under section 27IG arise. Since this was not done, penalty deserves to be deleted. Reliance is placed

COX & KINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., Income Tax Officer- Turner Morrison Building, 1(1)(1), 534/579, 5Th Floor, 16 Bank Street, Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhawan, Pan: Aaacc1921B M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., 1(1)(1), Turner Morrison Building, 534/579, 5Th Floor, Vs. 16 Bank Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacc1921B Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) and 271G of the Act.” 8 ITA No.1716/M/2016 & ors. M/s. Cox & Kings Ltd. “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP-1, Mumbai was justified in directing to delete the disallowance

DY.CIT -5(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

Section 271G of the Act. 08. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee has claimed an amount of ₹19,14,56,000/- on account of exchange loss and the learned Assessing Officer asked the assessee that why same should not be disallowed

KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

Section 271G of the Act. 08. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee has claimed an amount of ₹19,14,56,000/- on account of exchange loss and the learned Assessing Officer asked the assessee that why same should not be disallowed

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

disallowing Rs. 5,78.21.490 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules while computing the MAT on the book profits in accordance with section 115JB of the Act. 5. Adjustment on Dividend Distribution Tax Page No. 5 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited 5.1 On the facts

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(3), MUMBAI

disallowing expenditure amounting to Rs.\n29,88,367/- by way of professional charges paid.\n4 The learned AO-DRP erred in enhancing the \"book profit\" under Section 115-JB\nreturned by the Appellant, by an amount of Rs. 2,01,61,000/- representing the\ndisallowance under Section 14-A of the Act read with Rule 8-D made by them

ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. KODAK GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION ( I) P.LTD ( FORMERLY KODAK POLYCROME GRAFIC INDIA P.LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance of any claim of expenditure under section 37(1) albeit the value of the transaction has been taken at “Nil”. We find great substance in the arguments placed by the Ld. Counsel, because as reiterated above, here the issue related to transfer pricing adjustment which has been made by departmental authorities by taking the value of the international transaction

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

271G when the TP reference to the TPO is made by the AO and the Assessee fails to furnish information/documentation under section 92D(3). i) It is further submitted that in the assessment order at pg 51 of the paper book no satisfaction can be said to have been recorded merely because the officer has written that penalty

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

section 92C(1). of the method prescribed under section 92C(1). 38. The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice prevailing in the in the diamond industry separate identity of the diamond

ROYAL CANIN INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE/ASST CIT-3(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 1298/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Royal Canin India Private Limited, 1401&1402 F Wing, 14Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Cts Nos. 185/A, Graham Firth Compund Western Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan: Aadcr-4417-J ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(1)(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor,, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Khirendra M. Gupta With Shri Akhil Goel. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

disallowed franchise fee paid by the assessee since beginning i.e. from A.Y 2011-12. In assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 the adjustment was deleted on technical grounds. The appeals for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 involving identical issue of adjustment of franchise fee are pending before the CIT(A) 3. The ld. Authorized