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

143(3) read with section 144C was passed on 30th November, 2015, wherein the only adjustment is the transfer pricing

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

transfer-pricing officer to compute the arm‟s- length price of the international transaction on 30/12/2019. The learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act dated 27/1/2021 stating that the value of the international transaction with its associated enterprises are not being disturbed, since assessee has not filed 3CEB report. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section

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

transfer-pricing officer to compute the arm‟s- length price of the international transaction on 30/12/2019. The learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act dated 27/1/2021 stating that the value of the international transaction with its associated enterprises are not being disturbed, since assessee has not filed 3CEB report. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section

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

transfer-pricing officer to compute the arm‟s- length price of the international transaction on 30/12/2019. The learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act dated 27/1/2021 stating that the value of the international transaction with its associated enterprises are not being disturbed, since assessee has not filed 3CEB report. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section

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

transfer-pricing officer to compute the arm‟s- length price of the international transaction on 30/12/2019. The learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act dated 27/1/2021 stating that the value of the international transaction with its associated enterprises are not being disturbed, since assessee has not filed 3CEB report. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143 or Section 144 of the Act at any time, after the expiry of the aforesaid period which means in the present case it would expire on 31.03.2012. However, according to him, since the AO referred the issue relating to Transfer Pricing

3I INFOTECH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

transfer pricing adjustment of ₹27,84,86,725/- was made was added to the total income of the assessee. Several corporate tax additions were also made and the total income of the assessee was determined at a total loss of ₹673,51,82,759/- by an assessment order passed under Section 143

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

pricing officer for passing an order under section 92CA a further period available for completion of the assessment was to be extended by 12 months. Thus, the time limit for passing order under section 143 (3) was available up to 31/12/2016. According to the provisions of section 92CA (3A) the transfer

DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

pricing officer for passing an order under section 92CA a further period available for completion of the assessment was to be extended by 12 months. Thus, the time limit for passing order under section 143 (3) was available up to 31/12/2016. According to the provisions of section 92CA (3A) the transfer

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

pricing officer for passing an order under section 92CA a further period available for completion of the assessment was to be extended by 12 months. Thus, the time limit for passing order under section 143 (3) was available up to 31/12/2016. According to the provisions of section 92CA (3A) the transfer

COLGATE -PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

pricing officer for passing an order under section 92CA a further period available for completion of the assessment was to be extended by 12 months. Thus, the time limit for passing order under section 143 (3) was available up to 31/12/2016. According to the provisions of section 92CA (3A) the transfer

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

pricing addition of INR.5,67,32,905/-. The Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order, dated 16/12/2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) proposing the aforesaid Transfer

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

pricing addition of INR.5,67,32,905/-. The Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order, dated 16/12/2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) proposing the aforesaid Transfer

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built