ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

6 31/10/2016 Time limit for passing order u/s 92CA(3) expires as per section 92CA(3A) of the Act [i.e. 60 days prior to the date on which period of limitation stated in section 153 expires -i.e. 31.12.2016] Excluding 31.12.2016, 60 days expires on 1.11.2016 [i.e. 60 days = 30 days of December, 2016 and 30 days of November, 2016]. Thus

DSV AIR & SEA PVT. LTD (SUCESSSOR TO PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

6. The taxpayer has come up by moving an application for raising additional ground of appeal as under :- “Validity of TP order 18. Without prejudice to Ground Nos 1 to 17, the TP order passed under Section 92CA(3) is invalid and unsustainable in law since the same is passed on 31 January 2021 which is beyond the time limit

ZOEB ABBASBHAI KUDRATI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 15(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3143/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

transfer...... 8 I.T.A. No. 3143/Mum/2016 Zoeb Abbasbhai Kudrati The assessing officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub section (2),(3),(4),(5) and (6) of section 16,4, clause (I) of sub-section (1) and subsection (6) & (7) of section 23A, sub section

PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpyramid Developers, 2Nd Floor, Sharda Bhavan, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 400 005, Pan: Aaifp1958J ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 32(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Respondent

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub- section (1) of section 16A of that

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT-1, MUMBAI

797/Mum/2018

Transfer Pricing Guidelines as well as UK and Australian Regulations. It is evident from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, he sketchily referred to some of the submissions made by the assessee, however, he has not at all dealt with them in an effective manner. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, has observed that the loans advanced were

BHAVESH SHANTILAL GOHIL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhavesh Shantilal Gohil A-1304, Gohil Mansion, Irani Wadi, Shantilal Mody X Road No. 2, Asian Bakary Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067 Pan: Abkpg2287Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 35(1)(2) R. No. 2, C-12, Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

MUKESH KISHINDAS BATHIJA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

KIRAN ASHOK DESAI,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT MUMBAI-19, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed and order passed by the Ld

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalkiran Ashok Desai, D-3, Triveni Building, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Maharashtra 400 066 Pan: Aabpd6275H ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit R. No. 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 ..... Respondent

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub- section (1) of section 16A of that

ZAHIDA BANO MOHAMMAD YUSUF SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalzahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh A/10 Jai Hind Society, Asalpha Gahtkopar Link, Ro Mohili Village Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 ............... Appellant Pan: Buups3134C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400020

6 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1.— For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section

RAMESH S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhramesh S. Shah Vs. The Dcit, 203, A Wing Peninsula Central Circle -5(3) Corporate Park Ganpatrao Room No. 1906, 19Th Kadam Marg, Floor, Air India Building Lower Parel, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400013 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aagps9863H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Agnes P. Thomas Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2023

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they P a g e | 5 Ramesh S. Shah Vs. The DCIT, CC-5(3) apply in relation to a reference

MOHAMMED KHALID HABIB PARIHAR,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O., WARD-31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) oSf section 16A of that

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2)2, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of corporate guarantee fee of Rs.4,44,82,256/- by the ld. TPO. 5.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee had given guarantee / letter of consent to Mahindra Overseas Industries Company (Mauritius) Ltd., (MOICML in short), Mahindra USA Inc (MUSA) and Mahindra Forgings

BSI SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

price of the said property for the purpose of determination of stamp duty has been valued at Rs.68,99,500/-on which the stamp duty was paid by the transferee without raising any objection to the valuation. As per s.SOC of the Act where the value adopted for stamp duty is higher than the sale consideration, the capital gain

THE BOMBAY SAMACHAR PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

ITO 25(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. KIRIT RAOJIBHAI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

6) of section 16A clause (I) of sub-section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub- section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation

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

6 on pages 2 and 3 and para 21, page 61 of the assessment order wherein adjustment to arm's length price to buy back of shares of ICICI Bank UK Plc. has been made and carried forward loss to the subsequent year reduced by Rs.65,62,50,000. Since the Assessing Officer after examining has taken a particular view