MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JTDY/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and therefore, the issue being premature at this stage therefore

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and therefore, the issue being premature at this stage therefore

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

92E but failed to submit the same report during the assessment proceedings, therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted as the appellant should have disclosed the specified 7 Apace Realty transaction in its return of income during the assessment proceedings, but it failed to do so. It is also pertinent to mentioned here that, the appellant failed

WORLDWIDE SOFTWARE (EXPORTS),MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

92E will apply in the present case (i.e for obtaining report from accountant), by treating the impugned transaction as international transaction and thereby initiating penalty proceeding under section 271 BA of the Act; Levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act 9. erred in confirming the action of AO in levy of interest under section 234B

WORLDWIDE SOFTWARE (EXPORTS),MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

92E will apply in the present case (i.e for obtaining report from accountant), by treating the impugned transaction as international transaction and thereby initiating penalty proceeding under section 271 BA of the Act; Levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act 9. erred in confirming the action of AO in levy of interest under section 234B

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL P.LTD`,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in pursuance to the directions of the leaned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)–1(WZ), Mumbai. 2. These appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of materially similar set of facts and circumstances and were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

271 BA for its failure to furnish the audit report u/s 92E, are applicable to the assessee. In view of this, it appears that the assessment order u/s 143(3) passed by the AO on 30.12.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, so we are adjudicating both the appeals by a single common order. 306/M/2012 A.Y.2008-09 : 2.The assessee filed its return of income on 19.09.2008, declaring total income at Rs.2.69 crores. Subsequently, on 18.09.2009 it filed transfer pricing report in Form No.3CEB wherein International Transaction (IT) of Rs.3.35 crores were reported. The Assessing Officer

BUL INFRADEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4917/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Bul Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 901-902, Sagar Darshan Ward 15(1)(3), Apartment, Sector 18, Tower Room No. 15B, Gr. Floor, बनाम/ No.6, Nerul Navi Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshri Vs. Mumbai-400 706 Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aadcb4921H अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. M. Hussain, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P Kaushik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.11.19 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.19

u/s 271 B of the Act. As per the provisions of section 44AB read with section 271B of the Act, every person covered by the conditions stated therein should get its accounts audited and furnished report by the specified date. In this case, the AO noted that the appellant has not complied with the said provisions. As it is envisaged

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

HEINZ INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2012-13

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for various disallowances/ additions , Computation of MAT credit 10. erred in not carrying forward the MAT credit amounting to Rs 18,17,07,328 (including surcharge and education cess) to the subsequent years as claimed in the return of income for the AY 2012-13 11. Without prejudice to the above

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

section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision where a company can claim the expenditure is section 37 of the ActHence, it is pertinent to test the conditions mentioned in section 37 in order to conclude whether the expenditure is allowable? Section 37 of the Act Page

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Dow Agrosciences India The Additional Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor Block B Godrej It Park, Range 10(2), 02 Godrej Business, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai Mumbai - 4000079 Pan: Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent)

92E of the Act, reporting the particulars of international transactions 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO referred the issue relating to international transactions entered into by the assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA (1) of the Act in order to determine the arm’s length

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. I 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.9,92,01,580/-. Subsequently, it revised the return of income on 21.02.2012 declaring total income at Rs.9

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)c) when the Appellant had made full and true disclosures both, in the return of income and during assessment proceedings. 2. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground: "The Appellant prays that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid under section 115-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) on dividends

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act as all the facts and details were disclosed in return of Income and its annexure and Report under Section 92E

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) & 271G of the Income Tax\nAct as all the facts and details were disclosed in return of Income and its annexures\nand Report under Section 92E

ITP PUBLISHING INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Itp Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. Norton Plaza, 3Rd Floor, 898, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Pan: Aabci8454Q ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-12(2)(2), Room No. 109, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dharan Gandhi, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2023

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company in the business of magazine publishing and event management. The return of income was filed on 29-11-2013 declaring NIL income under the normal provisions of the act and Rs. 61, 91,743/- as book profit u/s