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

IOT DESIGN & ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaiot Design & Engineering Vs. Dcit-10(3) Limited Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Plot No.Y2, Ceat Tyre Road, Mumbai-400 020 Near Nahur Railway Station, Bhandup(W) Mumbai-400 078

92D. rule 10D(1). Rule 10B(2). Rule 10C and 10B(1)(e), it is clear that the law mandates the assessee to choose any of the method described in section 92C(1) as the most appropriate method by considering the factors specified in rule 10C, which will provide the most reliable measure of ALP of international transaction

ASST CIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IOT DESIGN & ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaiot Design & Engineering Vs. Dcit-10(3) Limited Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Plot No.Y2, Ceat Tyre Road, Mumbai-400 020 Near Nahur Railway Station, Bhandup(W) Mumbai-400 078

92D. rule 10D(1). Rule 10B(2). Rule 10C and 10B(1)(e), it is clear that the law mandates the assessee to choose any of the method described in section 92C(1) as the most appropriate method by considering the factors specified in rule 10C, which will provide the most reliable measure of ALP of international transaction

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

92D(3) of the Act read with rule 10(B)(1)(e) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short, ‘the rule’). The Ld.AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271G and finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.27,63,68

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:

92D(1) and section 27IBA for its failure to furnish the audit report u/s 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 On facts of the case: Assessee states that the shareholding of the Company comprised of different classes of shares. These shares represented the actual ownership as well as investor shares which were held in a protective capacity

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 of the Act. 3.1.11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in assuming the transaction relating to issue of equity shares as an international transaction within the explanation (i) (c) to Section 92B of the Act inserted vide Finance

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 of the Act. 3.1.11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in assuming the transaction relating to issue of equity shares as an international transaction within the explanation (i) (c) to Section 92B of the Act inserted vide Finance

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 of the Act. 3.1.11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in assuming the transaction relating to issue of equity shares as an international transaction within the explanation (i) (c) to Section 92B of the Act inserted vide Finance

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that

M/S. SP IMPERIAL STAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 3(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

92D(3) of the Act was also issued to the assessee. It is observed that the assessee had issued secured, redeemable, rated, listed, non-convertible bonds to certain foreign enterprises which are held by Credit Opportunities II PTE Limited, DB International (Asia Limited) and Omers Administration-Corporation, GMAA EM and the total amount outstanding with respect to the said debentures

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68,810/- instead of assessed income of INR 56,80,38,778/-. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above ground of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appals according to law. The appellant craves

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,234/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 23,92,94,596/- and a book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs. 76,40,58,837/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transactions a reference was made

SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

68(2) of Finance Act 1994. 1.3 TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in not giving cognisance to the doctrine of "consistency" and thereby disregarding the fact that the in past TPO has not held any adverse observation on service tax being collected by appellant. 1.4 Without prejudice to other grounds of appeal, the TPO and consequently

RUBICON RESEARCH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUBICON RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'). 2.4. Upholding / confirming the action of Ld. TPO, in applying Other Method inappropriately and further erred by not bringing on record any comparable data as mandated by section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B and Rule 10C of the Rules. 2.5. Upholding