BHARTKUMAR 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

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

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

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

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

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

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.6 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent M/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Jayant Kumar With Shri V. Jenerdhanan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018

penalty under section 271(b). In our view, the Assessing Officer has given sufficient notice in conformity with the proviso of section 92C(3). It is the assessee who had not responded and now taken a plea that a mandatory notice as required under section 92C(3) is not served upon the assessee. 8. The case law relied

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

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter ”the Act”), dated 31.10.2019 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 673,72,86,723/-/. 2. The assessee is aggrived with the obove order and has preferred order before us, raising following 10 grounds; ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. I Transfer Pricing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

section 37(1). The above submissions of the assessee and the documents filed in this regard have been duly considered. As per the Schedule - 20 related to the "Statement of Significant Accounting Policies", the basis and the method of accounting regarding Asset Restoration Cost is given, which is reproduced as below: "4 Fixed Assets, Depreciation and Amortization. (a) Asset restoration

LAQSHYA MEDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing In Vc No. –Ii) M/S. Laqshya Media Ltd. D C I T - 10(2)(1) Laqshya House Room No. 509/216A Next To Rameshwar Temple, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Saraswti Baug, Society Road, Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aaacl5004C Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajan Vora-Ar Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohancit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2020 O R D E R Per Pawan Singhthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 29Th October, 2018, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Penal (Drp) Dated 28Th August, 2018 For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao/ Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing - 3(1)(1)(Hereinafter Referred To As Tpo')/ Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income At 5,67,38,117As Against Returned Loss Of Rs.8,55,13,089 Computed By The Appellant; Part B -Transfer Pricing Ground: 2. Adjustment Of Rs.20.58.028/- Pertaining To Providing Of Corporate Guarantee (Cg) To Associated Enterprise (Ae)

92B; 2.4 erred in not considering the overall financial structuring arrangement between the Appellant and AEs, where over and above the share capital invested, funds were also provided, CG was given and therefore no adjustment could have been made in respect of CG without considering other funding arrangement; 2.5 erred in not appreciating the fact that the CG is given

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

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

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

penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions which deal 33 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Act by which deductions have

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

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

penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions which deal 33 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Act by which deductions have

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

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned DRP/AO have erred in disallowing tax depreciation of\nINR 16,00,000 claimed by the Appellant on the addition to fixed\nassets on account of ARC obligation.\n\n3. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case