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

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR -2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

disallowance is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. GROUND 6 : ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) TO ARM’S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION FOR ARM’S LENGTH PRTICE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1,27,73,700/-. 33. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is on addition of the impugned amount as adjustment for corporate guarantee rejecting

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

disallowance is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. GROUND 6 : ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) TO ARM’S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION FOR ARM’S LENGTH PRTICE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1,27,73,700/-. 33. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is on addition of the impugned amount as adjustment for corporate guarantee rejecting

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance under section 14A is concerned, DRP reduced the amount from Rs. 27,16,560/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Being aggrieved with this order of AO, passed to comply with the directions of DRP, the assessee preferred appeal before ITAT. 8. We have gone through the draft assessment order, order of TPO under section 92CA (3), directions

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance under section 14A is concerned, DRP reduced the amount from Rs. 27,16,560/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Being aggrieved with this order of AO, passed to comply with the directions of DRP, the assessee preferred appeal before ITAT. 8. We have gone through the draft assessment order, order of TPO under section 92CA (3), directions

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance under section 14A is concerned, DRP reduced the amount from Rs. 27,16,560/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Being aggrieved with this order of AO, passed to comply with the directions of DRP, the assessee preferred appeal before ITAT. 8. We have gone through the draft assessment order, order of TPO under section 92CA (3), directions

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished, unless the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that the price charged or paid

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance/ adjustment in income made on account of royalty for trade mark, that the average AMP expenditure by the leading FMCG companies for the period 2001-05 was 10.28%,that the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee during the same period was 10.45%,that the assessee had contended that its profitability(PBT to sales ratio) @10.85%was much higher compared

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance/ adjustment in income made on account of royalty for trade mark, that the average AMP expenditure by the leading FMCG companies for the period 2001-05 was 10.28%,that the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee during the same period was 10.45%,that the assessee had contended that its profitability(PBT to sales ratio) @10.85%was much higher compared

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance/ adjustment in income made on account of royalty for trade mark, that the average AMP expenditure by the leading FMCG companies for the period 2001-05 was 10.28%,that the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee during the same period was 10.45%,that the assessee had contended that its profitability(PBT to sales ratio) @10.85%was much higher compared

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

disallowance only to the extent of expenditure\npertaining to home improvement and decor business. As a result, ground no.2\nraised in assessee's appeal is partly allowed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ntransfer pricing adjustment on account of non-recovery of charges for\nproviding the letter of comfort/support.\n21. The brief

DAM CAPITAL ADVISORS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

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

DISALLOWANCE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID 28. During the year under consideration, the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.2,87,62,981/- to IDFC Capital (USA) Inc. towards rendering of marketing support services. During the course of assessment, the assessee submitted a copy of agreement entered into between the assessee and IDFC (USA) Inc. along with invoices in this regard

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowance originally made by the assessee has been accepted therefore learned dispute resolution panel cannot issue any direction. The objection of the assessee was dismissed. 08. Based on that the final assessment order was passed by the learned assessing officer on 25/1/2015 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,053,640,239/–. Assessee is aggrieved

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowance originally made by the assessee has been accepted therefore learned dispute resolution panel cannot issue any direction. The objection of the assessee was dismissed. 08. Based on that the final assessment order was passed by the learned assessing officer on 25/1/2015 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,053,640,239/–. Assessee is aggrieved

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowance originally made by the assessee has been accepted therefore learned dispute resolution panel cannot issue any direction. The objection of the assessee was dismissed. 08. Based on that the final assessment order was passed by the learned assessing officer on 25/1/2015 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,053,640,239/–. Assessee is aggrieved

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowance originally made by the assessee has been accepted therefore learned dispute resolution panel cannot issue any direction. The objection of the assessee was dismissed. 08. Based on that the final assessment order was passed by the learned assessing officer on 25/1/2015 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,053,640,239/–. Assessee is aggrieved

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

disallowance made by the AO under section 14A read with Rule\n8D of the Rules. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. As a result,\nground no.1 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed.”\n10. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the AO without\nrecording any satisfaction regarding the claim of the assessee

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

disallowance only to the extent of expenditure\npertaining to home improvement and decor business. As a result, ground no.2\nraised in assessee's appeal is partly allowed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ntransfer pricing adjustment on account of non-recovery of charges for\nproviding the letter of comfort/support.\n21. The brief