INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

transfer of long term securities (Illustrations) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

transfer’ for income-tax purposes. We find the claim of assessee to be correct and note that the mode of acquisition of shares by the assessee is covered by Section 47(xiib) of the Act. The same is noted to fall under the exception carved out in sub-clause (ix) of proviso to clause (b) of the Notification No. 43/2017

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

transfer’ for income-tax purposes. We find the claim of assessee to be correct and note that the mode of acquisition of shares by the assessee is covered by Section 47(xiib) of the Act. The same is noted to fall under the exception carved out in sub-clause (ix) of proviso to clause (b) of the Notification No. 43/2017

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

transfer of long term securities (Illustrations) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer’), is void and bad in law as it has been passed beyond the period of limitation under section 92CA read with section 153. Consequently, the final assessment order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 2(3), Mumbai (the ‘learned AO’) is also time barred. Additional Ground No.2 2. Without prejudice to additional ground

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 10(38) i.e. shares are held by the assessee for more than 12 months (approx. 28 Months), paid STT of Rs. 9,191/- at the time of sale, transaction is being carried out through recognized stock exchange in India. vi. Where transactions are carried out at the floor of stock exchange where no one knows each other

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

10. Ground No. 7 raised by the Assessee pertains to transfer pricing adjustment. Ground No. 7.1 and 7.2 11. Ground No. 7.1 and 7.2 raised by the Assessee are general grounds relating to transfer pricing adjustment which do not require separate adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No. 7.1 and 7.2 are dismissed as being general in nature. Ground

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

transfer pricing order being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the 40 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. appellant cannot be said to be an ‘eligible assessee’ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35. Accordingly, once the assessee becomes an ‘ineligible assessee’, the very foundation

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 10(38) of the income tax act. 059. The learned authorized representative has raised the argument as per page number 12 – 43 of the fact sheet furnished before us. The same arguments are repeated orally also. Same are as under :- a) Ld AR submitted facts of the transaction stating that In the Calendar Year 2011 the assessee had applied

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 10(38) of the income tax act. 059. The learned authorized representative has raised the argument as per page number 12 – 43 of the fact sheet furnished before us. The same arguments are repeated orally also. Same are as under :- a) Ld AR submitted facts of the transaction stating that In the Calendar Year 2011 the assessee had applied

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 10(38) of the income tax act. 059. The learned authorized representative has raised the argument as per page number 12 – 43 of the fact sheet furnished before us. The same arguments are repeated orally also. Same are as under :- a) Ld AR submitted facts of the transaction stating that In the Calendar Year 2011 the assessee had applied

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 10(38) of the income tax act. 059. The learned authorized representative has raised the argument as per page number 12 – 43 of the fact sheet furnished before us. The same arguments are repeated orally also. Same are as under :- a) Ld AR submitted facts of the transaction stating that In the Calendar Year 2011 the assessee had applied

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 10(38) of the income tax act. 059. The learned authorized representative has raised the argument as per page number 12 – 43 of the fact sheet furnished before us. The same arguments are repeated orally also. Same are as under :- a) Ld AR submitted facts of the transaction stating that In the Calendar Year 2011 the assessee had applied

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 10(38) of the income tax act. 059. The learned authorized representative has raised the argument as per page number 12 – 43 of the fact sheet furnished before us. The same arguments are repeated orally also. Same are as under :- a) Ld AR submitted facts of the transaction stating that In the Calendar Year 2011 the assessee had applied

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 10(38) of the income tax act. 059. The learned authorized representative has raised the argument as per page number 12 – 43 of the fact sheet furnished before us. The same arguments are repeated orally also. Same are as under :- a) Ld AR submitted facts of the transaction stating that In the Calendar Year 2011 the assessee had applied

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

38. In case of assessments involving transfer pricing, fixing of time limits at various stages sets forth that the object of the provisions is to facilitate faster assessment involving such determination. In the present case, as rightly held by the learned Judge in paragraphs 22 to 29 of the order dated 07.09.2020, the order of the TPO or the failure

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

10) without determining and establishing the existence of an arrangement between the concerned parties which results in more than ordinary profits and therefore the whole proceedings initiated under Transfer Pricing provisions is bad in Law and the KBS Creations(AY: 2021-22) Learned NeAC officer, Learned TPO and also Hon'ble DRP further erred in not considering the objection