RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 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

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

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI, AIR INDIA vs. AARTI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Cit, Central Circle-3(2) Aarti Industries Limited R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aabca 2787 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue, Against The Order Dated 30.10.2023 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 In The Appeal Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowances Made By The A.O. To Restrict The Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Despite The Fact That The Issue Has Not Attained Finality & Pending For Adjudication Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court? – Rs.396,81,798/- 3. Briefly The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Fertilizers & Intermediaries. For Such Manufacturing Activity, The Assessee Has Set Up A Plant At Plot No. 801/23, Gidc, Phase-Iii

SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 1. A reference u/s. 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in case of M/s. Aarti Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee) for A.Y. 2015-16 for computation of arm's length price in relation to the international transactions and specified domestic transactions

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price and duty differentials, the character of the impugned incentive in this case was revenue and not capital in nature. On the other hand, according to the assessee, what was relevant to decide the character of the incentive is the purpose test and not the mechanism of payment. 14. In our view, the controversy in hand can be resolved

ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price and duty differentials, the character of the impugned incentive in this case was revenue and not capital in nature. On the other hand, according to the assessee, what was relevant to decide the character of the incentive is the purpose test and not the mechanism of payment. 14. In our view, the controversy in hand can be resolved

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATES CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price and duty differentials, the character of the impugned incentive in this case was revenue and not capital in nature. On the other hand, according to the assessee, what was relevant to decide the character of the incentive is the purpose test and not the mechanism of payment. 14. In our view, the controversy in hand can be resolved

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1, THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115J of the Act, as it defies the basic intention behind introduction of provisions of behind introduction of provisions of section 115JB of the section 115JB of the Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Led. (supra

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115J of the Act, as it defies the basic intention behind introduction of provisions of behind introduction of provisions of section 115JB of the section 115JB of the Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Led. (supra

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115J of the Act, as it defies the basic intention behind introduction of provisions of behind introduction of provisions of section 115JB of the section 115JB of the Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Led. (supra

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRLCE-1, THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115J of the Act, as it defies the basic intention behind introduction of provisions of behind introduction of provisions of section 115JB of the section 115JB of the Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Led. (supra

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD, NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRLCE-1 , THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115J of the Act, as it defies the basic intention behind introduction of provisions of behind introduction of provisions of section 115JB of the section 115JB of the Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Led. (supra