WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA amounting to Rs.11,26,24,233/-. In addition, disallowances were made as follows: Disallowance under section 80G: Rs. 2,05,58,406/- Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets: Rs.12,42,89,747/- Being aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR argued and filed

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing order passed u/s 92CA(3) dt. 31/10/2017. (para no.6 of the order) that the TPO had examined in detail the transaction of Investment in the NCCPS in the above mentioned Associate Enterprise. After elaborate discussion in the order, TPO came to the conclusion that there was an arrangement, understanding between Assesse company and AE, whereby the loan transaction

FAYZ E HUSAYNI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NAFC) DELHI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Charitable Trust, no tax is\npayable in view of the provisions of Section 11 and the error\ncommitted does not have any impact on the revenue In other\nwords, there is no revenue loss.\n(iii)\nAs stated earlier, the error / mistake is bonafide and\nunintentional and the same has been rectified even before the\nassessment order was passed

SOU DWARKABAI SHASTRI PATWARDHAN TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2025-26

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed price by more

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he\noriginally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he\nhas received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if,\nin the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed\nprice by more

PASHUPATI CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

Pricing Officer, as\nthe case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is\nprejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal\n[Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or\nCommissioner,—\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should\nhave been made

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) has passed the order on 27 January 2022 after due consideration of the limitation period of 31 March 2022 as prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153 of the Act. Without prejudice to the above Grounds, Grounds of appeal in respect of the additions made by the learned AO are as under: Allowability of deduction under

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Charitable Trust having registration under section 12A of the Act and is also certified as a research organisation under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee had filed the original return of income claiming deduction under section 11. The case was re-opened based on the re-assessment done in assessee's case for AY 2010-11 wherein

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

charitable trust or institution. We find that recently Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT Vs Gabriel India (2025) 173 taxmann.com 219 (Mum) on similar issue where the assessee-company claimed deduction under section 80G at the rate of 50% of CSR expenses and furnished receipts of donees evidencing eligibility of deduction under section 80G allowed claim of such

M/S. RDC VENTURES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-27, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

charitable and religious trust. The same is distinguishable from the case of the assessee in respect of jurisdiction of territorial PCIT for making revision of assessment u/s 263 of the Act after the completion of the assessment. The decision in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) is pertained to the different proposition

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO') has\npassed the order on 27 January 2022 after due consideration of\nthe limitation period of 31 March 2022 as prescribed under\nsection 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153 of the Act.\nWithout prejudice to the above Grounds, Grounds of appeal in\nrespect of the additions made by the learned AO are as under:\nAllowability of deduction under

SHREE RAJ FOUNDATION,MUM vs. DDIT (E)-I(2), , MUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shree Raj Foundation बिधम/ Ddit(E)-1(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Krishna [Now Ito (Exem), Ward- Vs. Kunj, Vl Mehta Rd, Jvpd 2(3), Mumbai] Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Income Tax Office, Mumbai-400056. Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts9658M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paresh Shaparia Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Foundation Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao Re-Opening The Assessment Of Ay 2009-10 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Following The Binding Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Ito (Sc) (259 Itr 19) & Jurisdictional High Court Decision In The Case Of Fomento Resorts Hotels Ltd Vs. Acit (238 Itr 38) (Bom) & Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dcit (2008) (296 Itr 90) (Bom). 3. The Facts Relevant To The Legal Issue Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 Along With The Income & Expenditure Account, Balance-Sheet & Audit Report In Form No. 10B

Trust with Charity Commissioner, Mumbai vide order dated 02.07.2004; and Ld. CIT(E) has granted registration u/s 12A vide order dated 18.11.2004. Original Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27.12.2011 accepting the income at nil (as per the return filed). Subsequently, the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2026-27

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has 9 M/s. National Association For The Blind shot

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEM), CIRCLE - 2, MUMBAI

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

charitable activities by\nany common rationality. Thus, the trust is utilizing only a meagre part of its\nfund on the objects of the trust to cover up its commercial activities and a\nmajor portion of its funds are spent on activities which is aiding its commercial\nactivities.\nBased on the above facts, it is evident that the assessee trust

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Pricing Officer (TPO) held that the Corporate Guarantee is an international transaction. The details of guarantees and related loans as on 31.03.2008 is reproduced on page 16 & 17 of the TPO order dated 30.11.2013. M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. 5.1.2. Further during the course of TP assessment proceedings, the assessee company submitted a without prejudice benchmarking for determination of guarantee

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Pricing Officer (TPO) held that the Corporate Guarantee is an international transaction. The details of guarantees and related loans as on 31.03.2008 is reproduced on page 16 & 17 of the TPO order dated 30.11.2013. M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. 5.1.2. Further during the course of TP assessment proceedings, the assessee company submitted a without prejudice benchmarking for determination of guarantee

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Pricing Officer (TPO) held that the Corporate Guarantee is an international transaction. The details of guarantees and related loans as on 31.03.2008 is reproduced on page 16 & 17 of the TPO order dated 30.11.2013. M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. 5.1.2. Further during the course of TP assessment proceedings, the assessee company submitted a without prejudice benchmarking for determination of guarantee

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Pricing Officer (TPO) held that the Corporate Guarantee is an international transaction. The details of guarantees and related loans as on 31.03.2008 is reproduced on page 16 & 17 of the TPO order dated 30.11.2013. M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. 5.1.2. Further during the course of TP assessment proceedings, the assessee company submitted a without prejudice benchmarking for determination of guarantee