SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. We hold that the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view , which is patently illegal, in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. We hold that the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view , which is patently illegal, in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. We hold that the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view , which is patently illegal, in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. We hold that the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view , which is patently illegal, in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. We hold that the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view , which is patently illegal, in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. We hold that the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view , which is patently illegal, in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. We hold that the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view , which is patently illegal, in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. We hold that the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view , which is patently illegal, in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,TELAGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. We hold that the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view , which is patently illegal, in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263

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

263 of the income tax act. Therefore any order passed under section 92CA (3) of the act by the transfer pricing officer prior to 1/4/2022 is not subject to the revision proceedings. Thus, the impugned revisionary order revising the TP Assessment Order passed u/s

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

263 of the income tax act. Therefore any order passed under section 92CA (3) of the act by the transfer pricing officer prior to 1/4/2022 is not subject to the revision proceedings. Thus, the impugned revisionary order revising the TP Assessment Order passed u/s

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

263 of the income tax act. Therefore any order passed under section 92CA (3) of the act by the transfer pricing officer prior to 1/4/2022 is not subject to the revision proceedings. Thus, the impugned revisionary order revising the TP Assessment Order passed u/s

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

263 of the income tax act. Therefore any order passed under section 92CA (3) of the act by the transfer pricing officer prior to 1/4/2022 is not subject to the revision proceedings. Thus, the impugned revisionary order revising the TP Assessment Order passed u/s

3I INFOTECH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

Transfer Pricing Order. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing revision order u/s. 263

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 international Bhavani Gems Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 16–17 transactions and specified domestic transactions and therefore the order passed by the learned assessing officer cannot be said to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence cannot be subjected to revision u/s 263

RED MONSTER MOBILE PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400021 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 263 of the Act was received from the Assessing Officer through Range Head. Accordingly, case records were called for and examined by Ld. Pr.CIT, Mumbai -3. On examination of the records by the Ld. Pr.CIT, he observed that Assessment Order dated 07.12.2017 appeared to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and accordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the distributors. 7.2. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the upfront discount extended to the pre-paid distributors by terming the arrangement as 'Principal to Agent instead

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

revision of an assessment order, statute has granted that power to the CIT u/s 263 and only that authority can exercise that power in the manner indicated. The High Court has upheld the power of CIT to invoke proceedings u/s 263 in respect of order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144(C). 13. It is further submitted that when there