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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of Section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per Section 92CA (3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation under Section 153 expires

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

D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 against the revisionary order passed by the CIT(TP)-4, Mumbai [ the Ld CIT ] on 30.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 31.03.2023 ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES

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

D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 against the revisionary order passed by the CIT(TP)-4, Mumbai [ the Ld CIT ] on 30.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 31.03.2023 ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES

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

D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 against the revisionary order passed by the CIT(TP)-4, Mumbai [ the Ld CIT ] on 30.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 31.03.2023 ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES

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

D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 against the revisionary order passed by the CIT(TP)-4, Mumbai [ the Ld CIT ] on 30.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 31.03.2023 ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

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

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

1), Mumbai Suburban Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 604 PAN/GIR No.AABCV2572L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Madhur Agarwal Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar Date of Hearing 21/03/2023 Date of Pronouncement 24/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No. 1180/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2016-17 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

d) Deduction allowed under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs. 159,22,24,604. (e) Excess grant of deduction under section 36(1) (viia) Rs.12,23,01,710. (f) Deduction under section 36(1) (viii) Rs. 138, 52, 06,494. (g) Allowance of Long-term Capital loss to the extent of Rs.502,62,44,256. (h) Excess allowance of deduction

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

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

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No. 979/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2016-17 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31/03/2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 144C(13 r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 2 M/s. Tubacex Prakash India

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

Section 92C of the Income Tin Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the transaction. Parishi Diamonds 12 CONCLUSION. As the firm has also sold diamonds to independent parties

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: This appeal is filed by Publicis Communication P. Ltd, Mumbai 01. (assessee/ appellant) for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 1994/Mum/2014 against the assessment order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: This appeal is filed by Publicis Communication P. Ltd, Mumbai 01. (assessee/ appellant) for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 1994/Mum/2014 against the assessment order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: This appeal is filed by Publicis Communication P. Ltd, Mumbai 01. (assessee/ appellant) for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 1994/Mum/2014 against the assessment order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income

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

d) of section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied, either before initiating the transfer pricing assessment or before the completion of the assessment proceedings. 1.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have erred in violating the principles of natural justice by not granting reasonable and adequate opportunity, including

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

1) of Section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per Section 92CA (3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation under Section 153 expires

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 25/05/2021, passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) for the A.Y. 2016-17, passed in pursuance of direction given by the DRP dated 23/03/2021 u/s.144C(5) of the Act. 2 M/s. India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. 2. Before us several grounds

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 56, Mumbai ["CIT(A)"], erred in confirming additions of Rs. 13,15,590/- towards adjustment of Arm's Length Price ("ALP") on account of Compensation for Corporate and Bank Guarantees issued for Gammon Al Matar Joint Venture ("JV") and Rs.2

GAMMON INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 56, Mumbai ["CIT(A)"], erred in confirming additions of Rs. 13,15,590/- towards adjustment of Arm's Length Price ("ALP") on account of Compensation for Corporate and Bank Guarantees issued for Gammon Al Matar Joint Venture ("JV") and Rs.2

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as the department against final assessment order dated 26/02/2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in pursuance of direction given by the ld. DRP vide order dated 29/12/2015. 2. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee