DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

transfer by the appellant but solely on account of the appellant's income and share of profit generated from such JV /firm. When no funds whatsoever, borrowed or otherwise, have been invested in JVs/firms, the applicability of section 14A does not arise. When there is no expenditure incurred in relation Page No. 27 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

transfer by the appellant but solely on account of the appellant's income and share of profit generated from such JV /firm. When no funds whatsoever, borrowed or otherwise, have been invested in JVs/firms, the applicability of section 14A does not arise. When there is no expenditure incurred in relation Page No. 27 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAPGEMINI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 55, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds pressed during the course of hearing by Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant/Assessee. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant invited our attention to the Ground No. 16 and 17 raised as additional ground

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. DNJ CREATION LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing)

Transfer Pricing order u/s 92CA(3) and the consequential addition in the assessment order u/s 143(3) are untenable and unsustainable in law. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the issue where the learned AO/TPO wrongly applied the differential OP/OR margin of 8.76% (11.70% minus 2.94%) on the entire operating revenue

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

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI OIL AND GAS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NFAC , DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shapoorji Pallonji Oil & Gas Pvt. The National Faceless Ltd., Assessment Centre, 41/44 Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, Vs. Mumbai. Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Aaecc 9599 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gautam Thacker Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

condoned the delay of three days in filing the appeal and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. al and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. al and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated, facts

RASHI PERIPHERALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Transfer Pricing Officer and not in respect of any order passed by the Assessment Unit. The order so passed under S. 263 is thus bad in law, illegal and void ab initio." 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (Id. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee-company filed

KISHOR JETHALAL MORBIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27 (2)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. The brief facts as culled out from the proceeding 7. before the lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual, has filed return of income for the year under consideration on 20.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 53,84,950/-. However as per the information available on record, the assessee

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 3. This is a set of four appeals by the Revenue having identical set of factual matrix with common ground challenging deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). Since ground raised is common, we adjudicate all the four appeals by passing a consolidated order with facts drawn from

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 3. This is a set of four appeals by the Revenue having identical set of factual matrix with common ground challenging deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). Since ground raised is common, we adjudicate all the four appeals by passing a consolidated order with facts drawn from

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 3. This is a set of four appeals by the Revenue having identical set of factual matrix with common ground challenging deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). Since ground raised is common, we adjudicate all the four appeals by passing a consolidated order with facts drawn from

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 3. This is a set of four appeals by the Revenue having identical set of factual matrix with common ground challenging deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). Since ground raised is common, we adjudicate all the four appeals by passing a consolidated order with facts drawn from

ACIT-6(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR POWER LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 6(1)(1), Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S M/S. Essar Power Limited, 11Th Floor Essar House, 11 K.K. Marg, ……………… Respondent Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaace0895J Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Neena Jeph, Cit-Dr

delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 3. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: - 2 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the adjustment @LIBOR for calculating interest on the outstanding receivables without assigning OR giving adequate

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the matter for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is the ultimate holding company of the Glenmark Group. It is research led global, fully integrated pharma company, head quartered in Mumbai, incorporated in 1977, and engaged

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the matter for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is the ultimate holding company of the Glenmark Group. It is research led global, fully integrated pharma company, head quartered in Mumbai, incorporated in 1977, and engaged

M/S. C M BRIGHT BARS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-5, MUMBAI

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

condoning the delay for filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal by the assessee. Accordingly, the application for\nconodonation of delay is allowed.\n\n14. On merit it is argued that Ld. PCIT has passed an ex-parte order which\nis evident from para 3 of the impugned order and it was argued that in\nthe interest of natural justice

ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CIR-18(1), MUMBAI

condone the delay of 119\ndays and admit the appeal for disposing off the same on merits.\n5. Assessee is in appeal before us and raised following grounds in its\nappeal:\n\"1. Confirming the addition of Rs. 8,60,124/- on account of\ninterest paid on Loans borrowed for purchase of Surat Property\nwhich was given on Rent

ACIT-6(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR POWER GUJARAT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transfer pricing adjustment which was not the issue in reasons for reopening. Since the Assessing Officer has not made any addition in respect of issue in reasons for reopening, addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. 3. Perusal of record shows that there is delay of 29 days in filing of Cross Objections (C.O.) by assessee