TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TP)A No.3718/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2011-12 dated 08/01/2019 wherein by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 34 Taxmann.com 19, the ALP of corporate guarantee fee was restricted to 0.5%. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Id. TPO to consider the ALP of corporate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TP)A No.3718/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2011-12 dated 08/01/2019 wherein by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 34 Taxmann.com 19, the ALP of corporate guarantee fee was restricted to 0.5%. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Id. TPO to consider the ALP of corporate

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

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

house property’. The provisions of Section 23(4) of the Act are meant only for properties that are held as investments and not as stock in trade. We find that decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mangla Homes Pvt. Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 281 would not be applicable in the instant case

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

method of accounting for valuation of stock. Whereas the AO had dealt on the provisions of Sec145A of the Act and considered the facts and submissions and made addition of Rs.40,89,753/- and similarly made adjustment to the closing stock. 14 ITA. No. 2308&2188/Mum/2012 &C.O.76/Mum/2013(A.Y.: 2003-04) Novartis India Limited, Mumbai 15. The thirteenth disputed issue being

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

TP OP/TC Using As per TPO OP/TC Nature of study Report March business 2007 data Agrima -2.42% 1.39% Engaged in consultants providing International business Ltd. support services and assistance in feasibility study of projects. Cyber media 2.33% 8.73% Engaged in events Ltd. organizing conferences, exhibitions & Seminars and specially events. 4 Pfizer Limited Hindustan 10.33% 9.57% Engaged in Housing Co. rendering

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit-2(3)(1), Vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Room No.552, 5Th Floor 24, Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-58 24, Bombay House 344, Aayakar Bhavan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

method adopted the yield on interest rate for one year unsecured bond of 6.878% per annum and compared the same with credit rating of the AE which was at BB rating and for which the yield on interest rate for one year unsecured bond for 3.121% per annum. Accordingly, the ld. TPO arrived at the benefit accrued

ELCOME TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Day () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Elcome Technologies Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Vs. Tax-Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai. Elcome House, A-06, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122002 Pan No. Aaace7023Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dhanesh Bafna /Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anand Mohan/Mr. Michael Jerald, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2020

House, A-06, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122002 PAN No. AAACE7023Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dhanesh Bafna /Mr. Arpit Agrawal, AR Revenue by : Mr. Anand Mohan/Mr. Michael Jerald, DR Last Date of Hearing : 23/06/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year

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

House, B-Wing, 4th floor, Room No. 126, 1st floor, Vs. 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AACCM 2563 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee by Mr. Ketan Ved, AR Revenue by : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Sr. DR : Date of Hearing 07/11/2022 : Date of pronouncement 29/12/2022 M/s Mattel Toys (India

SIDDHAYU AAURVEDIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// THE ACIT CIRCLE 34(3) (2) , DELHI

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

TP order but not given in final order post Hon'ble DRP directions (without any such directions from Hon'ble DRP);without prejudice to above, erred in making transfer pricing adjustment on account of alleged corporate guarantee for 3 Siddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd. the entire year, without appreciating that such guarantee was provided only for part

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

method of accounting for valuation\nof stock. Whereas the AO had dealt on the provisions of\nSec145A of the Act and considered the facts and\nsubmissions and made addition of Rs.40,89,753/- and\nsimilarly made adjustment to the closing stock.\n15. The thirteenth disputed issue being the claim of bad\nand doubtful debts. the AO found that the assessee

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

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

properties and equity-like functionality and he observed that this transaction is in the form of financing with flexibility and value. The capital listed is less expensive than straight equity, yet provides virtually the same level of value add as a straight equity investment. According to him, it can be mezzanine debt, venture debt or convertible debt, structured equity

RAYMOND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. -2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property. The assessee is aggrieved by the direction of the CIT(A) to determine the annual value of the property at 12% of the cost of land and building. At the very outset, the Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal vide

M/S. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property. The assessee is aggrieved by the direction of the CIT(A) to determine the annual value of the property at 12% of the cost of land and building. At the very outset, the Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal vide