DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

price realised shall be subjected to capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

price realised shall be subjected to capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan

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

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2)]. The issuance of guarantees is not within the ambit of transfer pricing in United States because it is a service but because it is covered by the specific definition discussed above. As a matter of fact, David S Miller, in a paper titled 'Federal Income Tax Consequences of Guarantees; A Comprehensive Framework for Analysis' published in the 'The American

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2)]. The issuance of guarantees is not within the ambit of transfer pricing in United States because it is a service but because it is covered by the specific definition discussed above. As a matter of fact, David S Miller, in a paper titled 'Federal Income Tax Consequences of Guarantees; A Comprehensive Framework for Analysis' published in the 'The American

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 pricing mechanism and the arm's length price computed thereof is includible in the assessable income of the assessee. So however, where the character of payment is towards share application money, thereby reflecting a capital investment, and the same not having been disputed by the TPO, such a transaction cannot be subject to an arm's length price adjustment

RADHARAMAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Radharaman Constructions Asst. Cit, Circle – 19(3), Ground Floor, Shri Kunj, Mumbai 3A Altamount Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 026

2(31) of the Act, would be an independent tax entity vis-a- vis another 'person' regardless of any other relationship that may subsist between them. - Accordingly, it would not detract .from, the applicability of section 50C of the Act even if the buyers were in "firm-partner, iarfa-HUF or trustee-trust relationship. For the same reason

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

199 ITR 43 (SC), it was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. (supra) has held that there is a fundamental unwritten axiom that no legislature could have at all intended a double deduction in regards to the same business outgoing; and if it is intended, it should be clearly expressed. The assessee submitted that

ACIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LANXESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing and determination of Arms Length Price. The provisions of Length Price. The provisions of Section 144C do not, thus merely do not, thus merely prescribe procedure but a prescribe procedure but a substantive exercise in assessment. substantive exercise in assessment. 25. The Supreme Court in the case of R.Sharadamma (supra) after 25. The Supreme Court in the case

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, THANE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing and determination of Arms Length Price. The provisions of Length Price. The provisions of Section 144C do not, thus merely do not, thus merely prescribe procedure but a prescribe procedure but a substantive exercise in assessment. substantive exercise in assessment. 25. The Supreme Court in the case of R.Sharadamma (supra) after 25. The Supreme Court in the case

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

199/- be held to be allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act and the id. AO be accordingly directed to allow the same” 3. The additional grounds raised are pure legal issue, which does not require investigation of new facts. Hence, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

Section 92CA(3) of the Act, and proposed transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,99,40,70,269/-. Thereafter, the TPO passed a Rectification Order, dated 06/08/2021, and revised transfer pricing adjustment to INR 1,29,38,26,665/- from INR 199,40,70,26/-. Sr. Nature of TP adjustment TP Adjustment TP Adjustment

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.(FRMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹320,13,82,586/-. The learned Assessing Officer incorporating the above adjustment of transfer pricing and also making several other additions, passed the draft assessment order

JOHNSON &JOHNSON P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT/JT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹320,13,82,586/-. The learned Assessing Officer incorporating the above adjustment of transfer pricing and also making several other additions, passed the draft assessment order

JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹320,13,82,586/-. The learned Assessing Officer incorporating the above adjustment of transfer pricing and also making several other additions, passed the draft assessment order

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

199/- be held to be allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of\nthe Act and the id. AO be accordingly directed to allow the same\"\n3. The additional grounds raised are pure legal issue, which does not require\ninvestigation of new facts. Hence, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble\nApex Court in the case of National Thermal Power

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

price of the assets over its liabilities. The result in both the cases will remain same, that is, it is in fact the computation of capital gain on the transfer of positive capital assets as one unit which are embedded in the undertaking. The illustrations taken above can be summarized in a tabular form as under :- Table A - Position

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer-pricing adjustment in respect of ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 transaction of provision for guarantee by applying the rate of 0.5% of the guarantee amount. 2. The learned assessing officer/DRP has erred in disallowing an amount of ₹ 54,199,690/– under section