UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

22 and 23 of the order, page 217 of the Case Law\nPaper Book No. 2):\n(a) ...there is not even a token mention of the draft orders\nhaving been perused by the Additional Commissioner. The letter\nsimply grants an approval.\n(b)...it is an admitted position that the assessment orders\nare totally silent about the Assessing Officer

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 06/12/2024 passed by ld. CIT(A)-53, Mumbai in relation to the assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act for the A.Y.2020-21. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 2 Ramesh Jaisinghani Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

22, Vs. Chandivali, Andheri (E) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFCA6695R Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perumpura, Date of hearing: 06.11.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee

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

22, Vs. Chandivali, Andheri (E) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFCA6695R Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perumpura, Date of hearing: 06.11.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee

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

22, Vs. Chandivali, Andheri (E) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFCA6695R Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perumpura, Date of hearing: 06.11.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee

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

22, Vs. Chandivali, Andheri (E) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFCA6695R Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perumpura, Date of hearing: 06.11.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(31) of the Act. Thus, it is a case where the TPO proposed variation in the case of a non-existent entity, which is not even understood as a „person‟ under the Act. This also brings out that FEIPL could not be understood as an „eligible assessee‟ in the eyes of law under Section 144C

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

e) Ground No. 5 to 5.5: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act (f) Ground No. 6 to 6.3: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of `Other Income' (g) Ground No. 7 to 7.2: General grounds on Transfer Pricing Adjustment (h) Ground No. 7.3 to 7.8: Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 22

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:

22-08-2007 17 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) and (2) of section 120 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following further amendment to the Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue),(Central Board of Direct Taxes), number

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

22 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited “2) Whether the re-characterization of transaction and adjustment of interest is permissible for the year under consideration: a) The assessee totally ignored the basic tenet of transfer pricing as enshrined in section 92F(ii), as no unrelated party in uncontrolled circumstances would have fore gone

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

2), Rule 10C and Rule 10C and 10B(1)(e), it is clear that the law mandates the 10B(1)(e), it is clear that the law mandates the assessee to choose any of the method see to choose any of the method described in section 92C(1) as described in section 92C(1) as the most appropriate meth

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

transfer of o capital asset situate in India. Explanation 1-For the purposes of this clause- (a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

transfer of o capital asset situate in India. Explanation 1-For the purposes of this clause- (a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPE\RS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS SUCESSOR OF BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

transfer of o capital asset situate in India. Explanation 1-For the purposes of this clause- (a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

transfer of o capital asset situate in India. Explanation 1-For the purposes of this clause- (a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3 (2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

transfer of o capital asset situate in India. Explanation 1-For the purposes of this clause- (a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

E A date prior to the date on which 30.3.2016 period of limitation expires F Sixty day period expires on 31.1.2016 G Transfer Pricing Officer's order to be 30.1.2016 passed any time on / before this date H Date on which Transfer Pricing 31.01.2016 Officer's order is passed I Draft Assessment order passed on 29.03.2016 J DRP Directions passed

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

e Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) propose Officer. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed d adjustment of Rs.3,42,83,120/- to the international transaction of the guarantee to the international transaction of the guarantee to the international transaction of the guarantee commission. The Assessing Officer taking into consideration, the commission. The Assessing Officer taking into