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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an „associated enterprises‟, within meanings assigned under section 92A

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an „associated enterprises‟, within meanings assigned under section 92A

DY CIT, CC-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES HOLDING P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

Section 92A(2)(j) and directorship in a company and being its key managerial person clearly shows that prima facie that person has controlled the company. She also relied upon the stand of the Assessing Officer. We were thus urged to confirm the stand of the Assessing Officer on this point, and decline to interfere in the matter

DY CIT, CC-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES HOLDING P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

Section 92A(2)(j) and directorship in a company and being its key managerial person clearly shows that prima facie that person has controlled the company. She also relied upon the stand of the Assessing Officer. We were thus urged to confirm the stand of the Assessing Officer on this point, and decline to interfere in the matter

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

JAY MA DURGA BUILDTECH P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

92A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, assessee has not filed any report in Form 3CEB as required by provisions of section 92E of l.T. Act, 1961. As a result 4 no arm's length price is determined in result of this transaction and the creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction remains unproved. In the backdrop

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

reassessment proceedings. The assessee challenged reopening of assessment before the Tribunal in ITA No.4100/Mum/2011 for Assessment Year 2004-05. The Tribunal vide order dated 31/07/2017 quashed reopening of assessment. Therefore, claim was made before the A.O/DRP in the current year, as deduction was not allowed in the hands of TFL in A.Y. 2004-05. He submitted that third segment

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an ‘associated enterprises’, within meanings assigned under section 92A

AAACORP EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Aaa Corp Exim India Pvt. Ltd. C-206, Ghatkopar Industrial Estate, Off Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086 Pan: Aacca8815C ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Income Tax Offices, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D and 92E, unless the context otherwise requires, — (i) "accountant" shall have the same meaning as in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288; (ii) "arm's length price" means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions; (iii) "enterprise" means

SAI SHIPPING COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER/NFAC, DELHI

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

92A) are international transactions in terms of section 92B, the same needs to be verified. On perusal of records, it was found that the assessee had determined arm's length price of above international transactions through submission of report in form 3CEB u/s 92E. As regards Corporate Guarantee of Rs. 24.25 crore given by the assessee is concerned

M/S EDELWEISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

92A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is evident from the Audit Report u/s 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in Form 3CEB. d) Aster DMCC Dubai was used by the Assessee Company to over-invoice import of Pulses and reducing the profits in India, and thereby evading payment of Tax. e) The aforementioned finding of the Investigation

M/S EDELWEISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOW AS M/S EDELWEISS COMMODITIES SERVICES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

92A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is evident from the Audit Report u/s 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in Form 3CEB. d) Aster DMCC Dubai was used by the Assessee Company to over-invoice import of Pulses and reducing the profits in India, and thereby evading payment of Tax. e) The aforementioned finding of the Investigation