MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

DCIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARJAV DIAMONDS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 5(1)(1) Cc, 9010A Bharat Diamond Bourse, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Circle 5(1)(1), R.No.568, Aaykar Mumbai-400051. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Fenil Bhat Respondent By : Dr. K. R. Subhash, (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(I) "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 16,13,66,235/-Levied U/S 271G Of The It Act, 1961 When The Statutory Requirement Of Rule 10B(1)(E), Stating The Methodology For Benchmarking Transactions Using Tnmm, States That The Net Profit Margin From The Controlled International Transaction & The Uncontrolled International Transactions Should Be Separately Provided By The Assessee & Their Statutory Requirement Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Assessee?" Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd.

68,02,000 TNMM 3 Sale of Polished Diamonds 15,88,800 TNMM 4 Guarantee taken for Working 86,40,000,000 NA Capital Finance 5 Excess of Share Application Money 32,127 Other Method Returned 6 Equity Share Issued 81,59,97,000 Other Method 7. The Ld. TPO/AO observed that the assessee’s total turnover during the year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD ., MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 271G of the Act for all the three assessment years involved in present appeals. ears involved in present appeals. 3. On further appeal On further appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) however following the , the Ld. CIT(A) however following the ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBI vs. BLUE STAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD ., MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 271G of the Act for all the three assessment years involved in present appeals. ears involved in present appeals. 3. On further appeal On further appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) however following the , the Ld. CIT(A) however following the ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench

DY. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX 5(1)(1),, MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD ., MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 271G of the Act for all the three assessment years involved in present appeals. ears involved in present appeals. 3. On further appeal On further appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) however following the , the Ld. CIT(A) however following the ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LAXMI DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Laxmi Diamond Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Ew-200, G Block Bharat Diamond 903, Prathistha Bhavan, Old Course, Bandra Kurla Complex, Cgo Complex, M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Churchgate (E), Mumbai-400020 Pan-Aabcl1815G Appellant Respondent

section 271G and finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.27,63,68,939/-which is 2% of the total

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

271G when the TP reference to the TPO is made by the AO and the Assessee fails to furnish information/documentation under section 92D(3). i) It is further submitted that in the assessment order at pg 51 of the paper book no satisfaction can be said to have been recorded merely because the officer has written that penalty

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

271G of the Act for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars, concealing the taxable income and failure to maintain documents relating to alleged Transactions as per Section 92D of the Act The Assessee craves leave to add and submit such further facts, statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of the objections

KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

271G of the Act. 08. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee has claimed an amount of ₹19,14,56,000/- on account of exchange loss and the learned Assessing Officer asked the assessee that why same should not be disallowed. Assessee submitted that this exchange loss is in respect of forward contracts

DY.CIT -5(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

271G of the Act. 08. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee has claimed an amount of ₹19,14,56,000/- on account of exchange loss and the learned Assessing Officer asked the assessee that why same should not be disallowed. Assessee submitted that this exchange loss is in respect of forward contracts

NEWEDGE BROKER INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

68-83 of the paper book filed before us. As stated by the ld. TPO in his order, the single year updated data of the comparable companies were also provided by the assessee during the course of TP assessment vide letter dated 13/11/2014. Further, vide letter dated 09/12/2014, the assessee gave complete description of services received along with the cost

NEWEDGE BROKER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

68-83 of the paper book filed before us. As stated by the ld. TPO in his order, the single year updated data of the comparable companies were also provided by the assessee during the course of TP assessment vide letter dated 13/11/2014. Further, vide letter dated 09/12/2014, the assessee gave complete description of services received along with the cost

NEWEDGE BROKER INDIA PVT LTD. MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

68-83 of the paper book filed before us. As stated by the ld. TPO in his order, the single year updated data of the comparable companies were also provided by the assessee during the course of TP assessment vide letter dated 13/11/2014. Further, vide letter dated 09/12/2014, the assessee gave complete description of services received along with the cost

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

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 of the Act.\n8 The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any of the ground/s\nbefore or during the course of hearing\n2. The brief facts of the case