ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

price in respect thereof.\nb. The developer received the possession of the land which is constructed the\nimpugned building. The date, on which the assessee received the possession of the\nland, there is a transfer of the land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

price in respect thereof.\nb. The developer received the possession of the land which is constructed the\nimpugned building. The date, on which the assessee received the possession of the\nland, there is a transfer of the land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

price in respect thereof.\nb. The developer received the possession of the land which is constructed the\nimpugned building. The date, on which the assessee received the possession of the\nland, there is a transfer of the land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

business has been offered under the normal provisions of the Act. The return of income filed under the normal provisions of the Act. The return of income filed under the normal provisions of the Act. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment assessment and statutory M/s Essar

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

price in respect thereof.\nb. The developer received the possession of the land which is constructed the\nimpugned building. The date, on which the assessee received the possession of the\nland, there is a transfer of the land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

income of the assessee at ₹ 72,277,598/- against the return filed by the assessee of ₹ 44,898,014/– on 28/11/2012 by making a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 6,278,920/– and disallowance of depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 21,100,663/–. The adjustment on account of the transfer pricing was made in view of the order of the learned transfer

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

income of the assessee at ₹ 72,277,598/- against the return filed by the assessee of ₹ 44,898,014/– on 28/11/2012 by making a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 6,278,920/– and disallowance of depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 21,100,663/–. The adjustment on account of the transfer pricing was made in view of the order of the learned transfer

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

income of the assessee at ₹ 72,277,598/- against the return filed by the assessee of ₹ 44,898,014/– on 28/11/2012 by making a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 6,278,920/– and disallowance of depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 21,100,663/–. The adjustment on account of the transfer pricing was made in view of the order of the learned transfer

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

income is expected to be\ngenerated from the same.\n21. Grounds taken by Revenue are reproduced as under:\nITA No. 2243/MUM/2025\nGrounds no. 1 to 3 are related to Transfer Pricing\nOn the issue of Provision of Software, Technical and Consultancy Services:\n1.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Income. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Assessee is allowed. Ground No. 7 10. Ground No. 7 raised by the Assessee pertains to transfer pricing adjustment. Ground No. 7.1 and 7.2 11. Ground No. 7.1 and 7.2 raised by the Assessee are general grounds relating to transfer pricing adjustment which do not require separate adjudication. Accordingly, Ground

DCIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LAXCESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - 2(3), Mumbai (the TPO') erred in making an 2(3), Mumbai (the TPO') erred in making an 2(3), Mumbai (the TPO') erred in making an adjustment to the arm's length price of the international adjustment to the arm's length price of the international adjustment to the arm's length price

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - 2(3), Mumbai (the TPO') erred in making an 2(3), Mumbai (the TPO') erred in making an 2(3), Mumbai (the TPO') erred in making an adjustment to the arm's length price of the international adjustment to the arm's length price of the international adjustment to the arm's length price

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

business of providing information technology enabled services and development and maintenance of global web based services. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2009-10 on 02.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs.6,21,63,063/-. For assessment year 2010-11 it filed its return of income on 01.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.6

TAJ TV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Taj Tv Limited Dcit (International C/O. Suresh Surana & Taxation)-4(1)(2) Associates Llp Air India Building, 8Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 021 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct6542J Reference Of Orders / Directions In Appeal Sr Orders & Directions Passed By Date No 1 Draft Assessment Order U/S The Deputy 27/12/2019 144C Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai 2 Direction U/S 144C (5) Of The Cit (Drp-2) , 22/03/2021 Act Mumbai - 2 3 Assessment Order U/S 143 93) The Deputy 12/04/2021 R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

business purchase agreement was signed and therefore it establishes that the decision to sale the broadcasting business was communicated to assessee by its parent only. He further referred to the income tax return filed by the assessee showing the names of the directors of the assessee company. He submits that though assessee has 4 directors, however the agreement of business

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

business\nwhich is in the normal course of business undertaken by the assessee.\nFor the three years for which restriction is executed, there is no\ncorresponding intangible created in the books of GECC. According to\nthe ld. CIT, DR the non-compete fee received by the assessee is for the\nloss of income and not for the loss of source

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

income stands quashed and ought to be deleted. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the revenue authorities and submitted that merely because transfer 8 A.Y. 2009-10 Tata AIG General Insurance pricing order is delayed by a day, that does not mean TP adjustments should be quashed or the entire assessment order

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

business), 45 (Capital gain) and 56 (Income from other Sources). Even Income arising from International Transaction between A.E. must satisfy the test of Income under the Act and must find its home in one of the above heads i.e. charging provisions. This the revenue has not been able to show”. Further, they observed that the machinery Section

M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT -2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Business Income". Having held that Rs. 97,16,618 taxable under the head "Income from other sources" which has resulted in double taxation. 3) The CIT(A) ought to have held that since no dividend income has been received. the provision of Section 94(7) are not applicable and the short term capital loss of Rs. 8,56,000 arising