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

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer. The observation of the Ld. DRP is reproduced below: - 3.3 Directions: We have considered the relevant facts and the contentions of the assessee and find that the AO has made an addition on account of expenditure u/s.14A. This is evidence enough that the AO is not satisfied with the calculation of the estimation

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

cash depositing firms, but as expected there was no existence found for any depositing firms, but as expected there was no existence found for any depositing firms, but as expected there was no existence found for any such persons/firms. Almost all such accounts were opened with fake such persons/firms. Almost all such accounts were opened with fake such persons/firms. Almost

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

deposit in the bank accounts of his aforesaid proprietorship/ partnership firms, old currency notes of denomination Rs 500 and Rs 1000 which have ceased to be legal tender effective from 09.11.2016; 4.22. He further stated in his statement that he received Rs 84,00,000 in cash and after deducting his charges of Rs ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal

MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

deposit in the bank accounts of his aforesaid proprietorship/ partnership firms, old currency notes of denomination Rs 500 and Rs 1000 which have ceased to be legal tender effective from 09.11.2016; 4.22. He further stated in his statement that he received Rs 84,00,000 in cash and after deducting his charges of Rs ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal

JINDAL DRUGS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE, 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Adjustment cannot be added to Net Profits while computing Book Profits as per Section 115JB of the Act. 3.3. In accordance with the directions issued by the DRP, vide order dated 22.06.2022, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 28.07.2022 which has been impugned by way of the present appeal on the Grounds reproduced in paragraph

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

price which has been or\nwould have been charged or paid for the same or similar uncontrolled\ntransaction between non-associated enterprises under similar circumstances.\nIn order to support the payment of the aforementioned merger consideration,\nthe assessee has placed reliance upon the valuation report dated 05/01/2017\nprepared by M/s V.R.Pandya & Co. and the valuation report dated 30/12/2016\nprepared

M/S. SHRI GAMI INFOTECH PVT. LTED.,VASHI vs. DCIT- 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price. Hence obviously this income would remain only in the hands of the assessee in the form of cash. There is no evidence brought on record by the revenue that this income was not available in the form of cash balance with the assessee in the instant case. 3.8. Further we find that the assessee also declared

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

SANTOSH BHAIRU BHILARE,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Accordingly, in the facts and the circumstances of the present case, addition of Rs.1,17,71,000/- made by the ld. AO under s. 69A of the Act is deleted. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Bhairu Bhilare Assessing Officer, 10/60 Kamathipura, Mumbai 5Th Lane, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai – 400008 (Pan: Aivpb3382M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vinay Chopda, Ca Revenue : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065661493(1), Dated 14.06.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ward 20(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2019, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “The Learned Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Estimating The Income Of Rs. 1,17,71,000/- As Part Of The Total Income Of The Appellant For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Total Assessed Income Has Been Taxed Under Section 115Bbe Of The Act At A Rate Of 60% & Penalty Proceedings Have Been Initiated Under Section 271Aac In Respect Of The Alleged Unexplained Income. The Appellant Has Provided Sufficient Evidence To Substantiate The Source Of These Cash Deposits, Including:

cash sales is deposited into the bank account, and subsequently transferred to Amul to settle daily purchase invoices. The profit margin in this line of business is nominal, usually ranging between 1% to 1.5%, as the maximum retail price

DAM CAPITAL ADVISORS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

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

Transfer pricing adjustment of provision of expenses 1,28,75,981 4. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.9,71,70,100/-. The CIT(A), on further appeal, gave marginal relief to the assessee with regard to the above disallowances/additions. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal