BHAVANI GEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -5, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

transfer pricing officer for determination of arm’s-length price of the international transactions and specified domestic transaction and therefore the order of the learned that AO is not erroneous and hence cannot be subject to revision u/s 263 of the act. 016. Coming to the second issue of depreciation on goodwill, the fact shows that the assessee company

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing officer in terms of Para number 3.3 of the instruction number 3/2016 and survey findings were also shared ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. Ltd. with the transfer pricing

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing officer in terms of Para number 3.3 of the instruction number 3/2016 and survey findings were also shared ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. Ltd. with the transfer pricing

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing officer in terms of Para number 3.3 of the instruction number 3/2016 and survey findings were also shared ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. Ltd. with the transfer pricing

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing officer in terms of Para number 3.3 of the instruction number 3/2016 and survey findings were also shared ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. Ltd. with the transfer pricing

JAY MA DURGA BUILDTECH P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

reopening of the appellant's assessment u/s.147 of the Act. 4.10 Non-filing of audit report in Form No. 3CEB does not lead to escapement of income: The Assessing Officer has noted in the reasons recorded about the failure of the appellant to submit transfer pricing

KISHORE H AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the assessment order by observing that the Court was unable to understand how the Assessing Officer could, at all, exercise the jurisdiction and enter upon an Kishore H. Ajmera (HUF) & others inquiry on the reopening

JASMIN K AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the assessment order by observing that the Court was unable to understand how the Assessing Officer could, at all, exercise the jurisdiction and enter upon an Kishore H. Ajmera (HUF) & others inquiry on the reopening

KISHORE H AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the assessment order by observing that the Court was unable to understand how the Assessing Officer could, at all, exercise the jurisdiction and enter upon an Kishore H. Ajmera (HUF) & others inquiry on the reopening

JASMIN K AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the assessment order by observing that the Court was unable to understand how the Assessing Officer could, at all, exercise the jurisdiction and enter upon an Kishore H. Ajmera (HUF) & others inquiry on the reopening

JITEN K AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the assessment order by observing that the Court was unable to understand how the Assessing Officer could, at all, exercise the jurisdiction and enter upon an Kishore H. Ajmera (HUF) & others inquiry on the reopening

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

reopened for examining the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act. It is a matter of record that the said reassessment orders for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 dated 18.03.2013 were passed disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) in the impugned

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

reopened for examining the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act. It is a matter of record that the said reassessment orders for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 dated 18.03.2013 were passed disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) in the impugned

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

reopened for examining the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act. It is a matter of record that the said reassessment orders for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 dated 18.03.2013 were passed disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) in the impugned

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

reopened for examining the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act. It is a matter of record that the said reassessment orders for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 dated 18.03.2013 were passed disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) in the impugned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI vs. KHYATI REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh , Jm Dcit, Cir. 6(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Khyati Realtors Pvt.Ltd R.No.522, 5Th Floor 301/68, Manek Bhuvan 1St Hindu Colony Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 014 Pan/Gir No.Aacck4422B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and finance business. The assessee company filed its return of income on 29/09/2008 for the A.Y.2008-09 declaring total income of Rs.34,26,260/-. The said return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 31/10/2009. The original scrutiny assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29/12/2010 determining total income of Rs.43

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and\naccordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the\ndistributors.\n7.2. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015, the Assessing\nOfficer proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\non the upfront discount extended to the pre-paid distributors by\nterming the arrangement as 'Principal to Agent instead

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reopening of the assessment and therefore, contention of the contention of the assessee are liable to be rejected assessee are liable to be rejected. 12.3 We have heard rival submission o We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the f the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the contention raised by relevant