BHARATKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. ASHOKKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income-tax Act and the Legislature in its wisdom, having not included the words "tenancy rights" in section

CLESTRA LIFE SCIENCES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazm/S. Clestra Life Sciences P. Ltd. Ito, Ward 10(3)(1) (Formerly As Brahma Drugs P. Ltd.) 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ‘A’ Wing. 604 Delphi Orchid Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400076 Pan - Aaacb5795L Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The contentions and submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided here in under: i. ............................. ii. With reference to penalty imposed on account of adjustment of Rs.3,86,810/- made on the basis of transfer pricing provisions it was stated that entire international transactions were accepted by TPO except

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 80IB(8A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that mere approval from the prescribed authority does not exempt the assessee from fulfilling the statutory conditions required under sec. 80IB(8A)-II & IV of the I.T. Act and Rule 18DA of the I.T. Rules, 1962 for claiming the said deduction? 3. The appellant prays that the order

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 80IB(8A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that mere approval from the prescribed authority does not exempt the assessee from fulfilling the statutory conditions required under sec. 80IB(8A)-II & IV of the I.T. Act and Rule 18DA of the I.T. Rules, 1962 for claiming the said deduction? 3. The appellant prays that the order

RUSABH DIAMONDS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous

u/s 92 in respect of an "international transaction". A continuing debit balance is not an "international transaction" per se but is a "result" of the international transaction. Even the residuary clause in the definition of ‘international transaction’ i.e. "any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, incomes, losses or assets of such enterprises" does not apply to a continuing

BNT GLOBAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Bnt Global Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-9(1)(2) A/601-607, Mangal Arambh Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor Bldg., Off. S.V. Road, Kora Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kendra, Near Mc Donald M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Borivili (W), Mumbai 400092 Pan – Aaccb52181E Appellant Respondent

271 BA of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2014. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order levying penalty of `1,00,000/- under section 271BA of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-20, Mumbai, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.02.2016 holding as under at paras 5.3 to 5.5 thereof

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income 8. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 8.1. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such

BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

271(l)(c) 24. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 27I(I)(c) of the Act. Penalty u/s 271BA 25. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 271BA of the Act. Penalty u/s 271FA

ACIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI vs. GITANJALI EXPORTS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 36(1)(iii). iii. This ground of appeal is, therefore, allowed.” 4. Respectfully following the views so taken by the co-ordinate bench, we uphold the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. Ground no.1 is thus dismissed. 5. As regards ground nos.2 & 3 raised by the Assessing Officer, which

GITANJALI EXPORTS CORPON. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 36(1)(iii). iii. This ground of appeal is, therefore, allowed.” 4. Respectfully following the views so taken by the co-ordinate bench, we uphold the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. Ground no.1 is thus dismissed. 5. As regards ground nos.2 & 3 raised by the Assessing Officer, which

INDIA MEDTRONIC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarit(Tp)A No.2160/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 India Meditronic Pvt. Ltd., Acit 10(1)(1) 1241 Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai Vs. Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093

penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act; The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of-appeal.” The assessee, vide its letter dated 22.02.2018, has filed additional grounds of appeal, which read

VIRGO VALVES & CONTROLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in respect of addition of Rs 15,94,478/- on account of Arm's Length Price computed by the assessing officer in respect of pledge of shares of the A namely Virgo Europe Spa to which the loan for which the pledge of shares was given was granted by State Bank

VIRGO VALVES & CONTROLS LTD. (NOW VIRGO VALVES & CONTROLS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 1(3), MUMBAI

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in respect of addition of Rs 15,94,478/- on account of Arm's Length Price computed by the assessing officer in respect of pledge of shares of the A namely Virgo Europe Spa to which the loan for which the pledge of shares was given was granted by State Bank

VIRGO VALVES & CONTROLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in respect of addition of Rs 15,94,478/- on account of Arm's Length Price computed by the assessing officer in respect of pledge of shares of the A namely Virgo Europe Spa to which the loan for which the pledge of shares was given was granted by State Bank