DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92C of the Act. 11. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without applying his mind and without recording his satisfaction, thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the TPC as invalid; 12. Erred in confirming the action

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92C of the Act. 11. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without applying his mind and without recording his satisfaction, thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the TPC as invalid; 12. Erred in confirming the action

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92C of the Act. 11. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without applying his mind and without recording his satisfaction, thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the TPC as invalid; 12. Erred in confirming the action

ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

section 115J of the Income-tax Act?”.It was never a question before the Hon'ble High Court that a receipt which is not taxable at all under the provisions of the Act should be included for the purpose of computing book profits or not. Accordingly, the decision per se does not apply to the fact of the Appellant

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

section 115J of the Income-tax Act?”.It was never a question before the Hon'ble High Court that a receipt which is not taxable at all under the provisions of the Act should be included for the purpose of computing book profits or not. Accordingly, the decision per se does not apply to the fact of the Appellant

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Transfer Pricing Office (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act 6. erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') in making reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without applying his mind and without recording his satisfaction, thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the TPO as invalid; 7. erred in confirming

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Transfer Pricing Office (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act 6. erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') in making reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without applying his mind and without recording his satisfaction, thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the TPO as invalid; 7. erred in confirming

THE ACIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

price of such land. We have perused the valuation report, dated 08.07.2006 submitted by the Assessee wherein to arrive at the estimate/approximation of the fair market value as on 01.04.1981, the valuer adopted two methods. The valuer determined the value by Investment Reversion Method and also by Rent Capitalization Method, and thereafter, taking value

M/S. ACC LTD ( FORMELY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMEMTN COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

price of such land. We have perused the valuation report, dated 08.07.2006 submitted by the Assessee wherein to arrive at the estimate/approximation of the fair market value as on 01.04.1981, the valuer adopted two methods. The valuer determined the value by Investment Reversion Method and also by Rent Capitalization Method, and thereafter, taking value

ACIT -CIR 16(1), MUMBAI vs. TV 18 BRAODCAST LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer had discussed, at length, nature of „debenture‟ being a debt instrument, what he has missed out is the fact the character of an optionally convertible debenture is materially different vis-à-vis a debenture simplicitor, and that it‟s the opportunity to subscribe to equity which, in such a case, becomes pre-dominant motive for subscription

TV 18 BROADCAST LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 16(1), MUIMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer had discussed, at length, nature of „debenture‟ being a debt instrument, what he has missed out is the fact the character of an optionally convertible debenture is materially different vis-à-vis a debenture simplicitor, and that it‟s the opportunity to subscribe to equity which, in such a case, becomes pre-dominant motive for subscription

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 115JB is also an indicator of the intention of the legislature and also the scheme of the section that the incomes which are treated as exempt under the Income Tax Act are to be excluded from the profit & loss account. The said clause excludes; (ii) the amount of income to which any of the provision 0f section

MALCO ENERGY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

price of the debentures was decided at ₹ 3200 crores (original issue consideration of ₹ 3000 crores plus premium of 200 crores). The assessee debited these Rs 200 crores as foreclosure cost to the profit and loss account. This expenditurewas not claimed as deductible expenditure in normal computation of Total income. In fact, assessee in form no 3CD prepared by it specifically

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG (1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

price at a future date 6 ITAs 4248 & 4158/Mum/2014 ICICI Bank Ltd falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract.” 8. Accordingly, we hold that the loss claimed

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

price at a future date 6 ITAs 4248 & 4158/Mum/2014 ICICI Bank Ltd falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract.” 8. Accordingly, we hold that the loss claimed

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 37(1) of the Act. It is trite that assessment proceedings before taxing authority are to assess correct tax liability. However, in the present case, the AO as well as learned DRP did not entertain the claim of the assessee in view of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), without going into the merits

GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP. 24. Having considered rival submissions, we find that while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010–11 in appeal being IT(TP)A no.1899/Mum./2015, dated 5th September 2019, the Tribunal after following certain judicial precedents has restored the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to apply

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

transfer pricing adjustment and disallowance of depreciation on steel purchases under normal provisions of the Act.\n7.3.2 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (194 Taxman 387)(Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held \"where tax payable on income computed under normal provisions