DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing legislation. So far as arm's length test is concerned, it presupposes that such a transaction is possible in arm's length situation. However, in a situation in which the subsidiary does not have adequate financial standing of its own and is inadequately capitalized, none will guarantee financial obligations of such a subsidiary. I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing legislation. So far as arm's length test is concerned, it presupposes that such a transaction is possible in arm's length situation. However, in a situation in which the subsidiary does not have adequate financial standing of its own and is inadequately capitalized, none will guarantee financial obligations of such a subsidiary. I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which is already considered and part and pa is already considered and part

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which is already considered and part and pa is already considered and part

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which is already considered and part and pa is already considered and part

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which is already considered and part and pa is already considered and part

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which is already considered and part and pa is already considered and part

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which is already considered and part and pa is already considered and part

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which is already considered and part and pa is already considered and part

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

cash. In the absence of such a provision an adjustment to the arm's length price couldn't be considered as an amount receivable from associated enterprises. Hence, the proposal of the TPO / AO is bad in law, void-ab-initio and non-est in the eyes of law.  It may be noted that Section 92CA(3) which enables

ACIT 16(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. CHAMPALAL S. SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 1295/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) बिाम/ Shri Champalal S. Shah, Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(3), A-8, Maulana Shaukat Ali Pratyakshakar Bhavan, V. Road, Matru Mandir, Grant Road (East), Mumbai 400 007. Mumbai – 400007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahps4629Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(3), Shri Champalal S. Shah, B-33, Pannalal Terrace, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, V. 2N D Floor, Grant Road (E), 2N D Floor, Matru Mandir, Mumbai 400 007. Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahps4629Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By : Shri P.R. Ghosh, Cit D.R.

transferred to „Padmavati Bullion, Ahmedabad‟ through cheque. Thus, it was observed by the AO that the assessee was keeping such huge cash with him in the intervening period which was also not invested elsewhere by the assessee which is strange and unbelievable behavior and is not possible from the prudent businessman like assessee. Thus, the A.O. inferred that the assessee

CHAMPALAL S. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 1295/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) बिाम/ Shri Champalal S. Shah, Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(3), A-8, Maulana Shaukat Ali Pratyakshakar Bhavan, V. Road, Matru Mandir, Grant Road (East), Mumbai 400 007. Mumbai – 400007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahps4629Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(3), Shri Champalal S. Shah, B-33, Pannalal Terrace, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, V. 2N D Floor, Grant Road (E), 2N D Floor, Matru Mandir, Mumbai 400 007. Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahps4629Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By : Shri P.R. Ghosh, Cit D.R.

transferred to „Padmavati Bullion, Ahmedabad‟ through cheque. Thus, it was observed by the AO that the assessee was keeping such huge cash with him in the intervening period which was also not invested elsewhere by the assessee which is strange and unbelievable behavior and is not possible from the prudent businessman like assessee. Thus, the A.O. inferred that the assessee

M/S. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Transfer Pricing Officer to compute the interest on the interest free advances paid to the A.E. Ground no.5, is partly allowed. 41. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. ITA no.274/Mum./2007 – Department’s Appeal C.O. no.121/Mum./2007 – Assessee’s Cross Objection 42. Ground no.1, in Department’s appeal corresponding to ground raised by the assessee

ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of interest, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld interest rate of 2% as against interest rate of 9% applied by the Assessing Officer. 33.1 We find that issue in dispute is connected to the ground No. eight of the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2859/Mum/2009 for assessment year

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of interest, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld interest rate of 2% as against interest rate of 9% applied by the Assessing Officer. 33.1 We find that issue in dispute is connected to the ground No. eight of the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2859/Mum/2009 for assessment year

ACIT CEN CI-43 vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of interest, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld interest rate of 2% as against interest rate of 9% applied by the Assessing Officer. 33.1 We find that issue in dispute is connected to the ground No. eight of the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2859/Mum/2009 for assessment year

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of interest, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld interest rate of 2% as against interest rate of 9% applied by the Assessing Officer. 33.1 We find that issue in dispute is connected to the ground No. eight of the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2859/Mum/2009 for assessment year

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of interest, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld interest rate of 2% as against interest rate of 9% applied by the Assessing Officer. 33.1 We find that issue in dispute is connected to the ground No. eight of the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2859/Mum/2009 for assessment year