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

132/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transactions relating to the provision of an availing of services by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise (“AE”) were not at an arm’s length. 1.2 The Assessing Officer / the Dispute Resolution Panel / the Transfer Pricing Officer have erred in holding that advertisement support services rendered

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

132/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transactions relating to the provision of an availing of services by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise (“AE”) were not at an arm’s length. 1.2 The Assessing Officer / the Dispute Resolution Panel / the Transfer Pricing Officer have erred in holding that advertisement support services rendered

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

price at which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transferred from the ITO 27(3)(2) Mumbai to ITO Ward 21(3)(1) Mumbai. Since, this legal requirement to assume jurisdiction by the AO who passed the assessment order in this appeal is completely missing, we are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee as above which were also not controverted on facts

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transferred from the ITO 27(3)(2) Mumbai to ITO Ward 21(3)(1) Mumbai. Since, this legal requirement to assume jurisdiction by the AO who passed the assessment order in this appeal is completely missing, we are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee as above which were also not controverted on facts

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transferred from the ITO 27(3)(2) Mumbai to ITO Ward 21(3)(1) Mumbai. Since, this legal requirement to assume jurisdiction by the AO who passed the assessment order in this appeal is completely missing, we are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee as above which were also not controverted on facts

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transferred from the ITO 27(3)(2) Mumbai to ITO Ward 21(3)(1) Mumbai. Since, this legal requirement to assume jurisdiction by the AO who passed the assessment order in this appeal is completely missing, we are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee as above which were also not controverted on facts

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transferred from the ITO 27(3)(2) Mumbai to ITO Ward 21(3)(1) Mumbai. Since, this legal requirement to assume jurisdiction by the AO who passed the assessment order in this appeal is completely missing, we are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee as above which were also not controverted on facts

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transferred from the ITO 27(3)(2) Mumbai to ITO Ward 21(3)(1) Mumbai. Since, this legal requirement to assume jurisdiction by the AO who passed the assessment order in this appeal is completely missing, we are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee as above which were also not controverted on facts

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transferred from the ITO 27(3)(2) Mumbai to ITO Ward 21(3)(1) Mumbai. Since, this legal requirement to assume jurisdiction by the AO who passed the assessment order in this appeal is completely missing, we are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee as above which were also not controverted on facts

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 153 of the Act) is time barred and liable to be quashed; Claim for additional depreciation 1. The AO erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 7,17,193 on the written down value of assets being items included to block of assets of Computer, Plant and Machinery, Building consequent to disallowance of revenue expenditure in the assessment orders

GNP CONSULTANCY AND SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,NARIMAN POINT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Gnp Consultancy & Dcit Solutions Private Limited Central Circle-6(1) Room No.1905, 19 Th Floor, Plot No.91, Shop No.1 Channel Classic Chs Sector Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point 4 Kopar Khairne, Thane Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aadcg3716B Gnp Consultancy & Dcit Solutions Private Limited Central Circle-6(1) Plot No.91, Shop No.1 Room No.1905, 19 Th Floor, Channel Classic Chs Sector Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point 4 Kopar Khairne, Thane Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 709 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024

section 69C of the act. This addition is made as per paragraph number 12.3.3 of the order. 061. Thus, the total addition under section 69C of the act is cumulatively of all such transactions totalling to ₹ 54,830,909/- was made. 062. All these additions were challenged before the learned CIT – A as per ground number 13 before him which