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

2 export general Life 6,56,15,453 sales science distributors GmbH 3 export Jinan 37,73,085 sales pharmaceutical company Ltd 4 import Jinan 42,08,526 purchases pharmaceutical company Ltd 011. The learned CIT noted that the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing

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

2 export general Life 6,56,15,453 sales science distributors GmbH 3 export Jinan 37,73,085 sales pharmaceutical company Ltd 4 import Jinan 42,08,526 purchases pharmaceutical company Ltd 011. The learned CIT noted that the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing

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

2 export general Life 6,56,15,453 sales science distributors GmbH 3 export Jinan 37,73,085 sales pharmaceutical company Ltd 4 import Jinan 42,08,526 purchases pharmaceutical company Ltd 011. The learned CIT noted that the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at ` 5,68,97,341. 144. The assessee is engaged in the business of broadcasting and telecasting of television channels. Accordingly, it incurs up–linking charges in connection with its broadcasting business. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee paid ` 5,68,97,341, towards up–linking fees to Television Eighteen India

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

148 issued by the AO, as also the material submitted at the stage of appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or causing to be made a “further inquiry” in exercise of the power under Section 250(4). This approach not having been adopted, the impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot be approved

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

Transfer Pricing Officer" means a Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Board17 to perform all or any of the functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 92C and 92D in respect of any person or class of persons.]' Provisions of section 2 (28C) of the Act defines the Joint Commissioner means a person appointed

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

transfer price..............” iv) that there was no proof that the investment made by the assessee in Tops BV, Netherlands, was actually in the nature of investment in share capital and not actually a loan in the garb of share capital. 6.5.1 In rejoinder to the above contentions of the learned D.R., the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

transferring, the money, from one party to another, party. As every body will give gift to other party, and than giver will write off the same, other party will not pay any tax on same. Now, in new amended provision of section 56, even, gifts, from non-relatives, are taxable as income In Income Tax Act, even capital receipts

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)

2) dated 17.01.2018, the erstwhile Assessing Officer stood wholly divested of the statutory authority to initiate any proceedings thereafter. The act of issuance of notice under section 148 by an officer bereft of such authority is not merely a procedural irregularity, it is a jurisdictional nullity. cannot support the edifice of justice. 22. Jurisdiction under the Income

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)

2) dated 17.01.2018, the erstwhile Assessing Officer stood wholly divested of the statutory authority to initiate any proceedings thereafter. The act of issuance of notice under section 148 by an officer bereft of such authority is not merely a procedural irregularity, it is a jurisdictional nullity. cannot support the edifice of justice. 22. Jurisdiction under the Income

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)

2) dated 17.01.2018, the erstwhile Assessing Officer stood wholly divested of the statutory authority to initiate any proceedings thereafter. The act of issuance of notice under section 148 by an officer bereft of such authority is not merely a procedural irregularity, it is a jurisdictional nullity. cannot support the edifice of justice. 22. Jurisdiction under the Income

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

2) dated 17.01.2018, the erstwhile Assessing Officer stood wholly divested of the statutory authority to initiate any proceedings thereafter. The act of issuance of notice under section 148 by an officer bereft of such authority is not merely a procedural irregularity, it is a jurisdictional nullity. cannot support the edifice of justice. 22. Jurisdiction under the Income

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)

2) dated 17.01.2018, the erstwhile Assessing Officer stood wholly divested of the statutory authority to initiate any proceedings thereafter. The act of issuance of notice under section 148 by an officer bereft of such authority is not merely a procedural irregularity, it is a jurisdictional nullity. cannot support the edifice of justice. 22. Jurisdiction under the Income

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)

2) dated 17.01.2018, the erstwhile Assessing Officer stood wholly divested of the statutory authority to initiate any proceedings thereafter. The act of issuance of notice under section 148 by an officer bereft of such authority is not merely a procedural irregularity, it is a jurisdictional nullity. cannot support the edifice of justice. 22. Jurisdiction under the Income

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)

2) dated 17.01.2018, the erstwhile Assessing Officer stood wholly divested of the statutory authority to initiate any proceedings thereafter. The act of issuance of notice under section 148 by an officer bereft of such authority is not merely a procedural irregularity, it is a jurisdictional nullity. cannot support the edifice of justice. 22. Jurisdiction under the Income

ACIT CIR. 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 7,14,48,533/-. In the said assessment order, there is a specific observation made by the ld AO that the income of the assessee life insurance company was determined in accordance with section 44 read with First Schedule to the Act. 4.3. Later this assessment was sought to be reopened

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

2(47) of the act, the transfer took place in financial year 2008-09 being A.Y. 2009-10, and not the year under consideration. He had submitted that, if at all any capital gain is to be charged, the same to relevant for AY.2009-10. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

2. erred in not considering the fact that no income has been received or accrued from the alleged loan transaction and accordingly, no transfer pricing regulations can be made applicable to the same. Consequently, the learned AO's reference of the Appellant's case to the learned transfer pricing officer (‘learned TPO') and the consequential transfer pricing adjustment, of interest