BHARATKUMAR HARIDAS MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

24-11-2025 by Appellant and 2025 by Appellant and without granting the Appellant an opportunity of perso without granting the Appellant an opportunity of perso without granting the Appellant an opportunity of personal hearing despite specific written request, thereby violating the principles of despite specific written request, thereby violating the principles of despite specific written request, thereby violating

MR. BIPINCHANDRA SHANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23 (1) (6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

price and Rs. 2,500 being legal expenses incurred in connection therewith from the sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,000 and assessed the same as short-term capital gain from the sale of the flat because the flat had been sold within 4 to 5 months of the purchase. The assessee was aggrieved by the above order

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:

x Note: The Central Board of Direct Taxes empowers the Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation or the concerned Directors of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing) to distribute the working amongst the Transfer Pricing Officers working under then while exercising their powers and performing theirs functions.” A perusal of the above notification would show that the Board in exercise

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing provisions do not apply to issuance of equity shares. Consequently, the DRP ought to have held that reference of the transaction to the TPO under Section 92CA (1) of the Act for determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) is untenable and bad in law. 3.1.5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing provisions do not apply to issuance of equity shares. Consequently, the DRP ought to have held that reference of the transaction to the TPO under Section 92CA (1) of the Act for determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) is untenable and bad in law. 3.1.5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing provisions do not apply to issuance of equity shares. Consequently, the DRP ought to have held that reference of the transaction to the TPO under Section 92CA (1) of the Act for determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) is untenable and bad in law. 3.1.5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

X of the I.T. Act, particularly, Section 92,92C and section 92D of the I.T. Act Act, particularly, Section 92,92C and section 92D of the I.T. Act Act, particularly, Section 92,92C and section 92D of the I.T. Act and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule 10D(g), and Rule 10C, Rule

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

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 such huge sum of money without charging interest from AE. Therefore, the receivable representing

INDORAMA VENTURES OXIDES ANKLESHWAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.\n16,78,40,626/- on account of purchase of business from HIIPL. The Ld. AR argued\nonnon-applicability of section 56(2)(x) of the Act on purchase / receipt of\n'business undertaking'.He submitted that therevenue has made this adjustment\nprimarily on the ground that the business was purchased amount to\nRs.1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMAGRA WEALTHMAX PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

24) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and when a receipt is not on in the character of income it cannot form part of the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961. The same was held by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ankit Metal and Power Ltd. (109 Taxmann.com

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

MEENA ARJUN NARANG,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

price. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are extracted as under: “5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that assessee had purchased flat no. 204, B-Wing, "Insignia" building situated at Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai for a consideration of Rs. 1,79,94,452/-. However, the value

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

24 March 2023  DHL Logistics (P) Ltd v NaFAC (ITA No 1240/Mum/2021) dated 22 July 2023 (Refer pages 1342 to 1353 of the legal PB)  Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited v. ACIT (ITA No. 040/Mum/2021) dated 27 April 2023  Johnson & Johnson Private Limited vs DCIT (ITA No 3016/MUM/2016) dated 13 June 2023 13. On the other hand ld. DR has filed

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

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

X of the Act for determination of ALP would apply or not apply depending upon the specific provision contained in the Act for example in the case of Section 56(2)(vii)/(viia)/(viib) of the Act. 16 Section 92C of the Act provides for computation of arm’s length 14 price or ALP. It provides that the ALP shall

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. ()

x) Addition towards rental Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.5 - income Disallowance u/s.14A - - - Ground No.6 - Addition made u/s.43CA Ground No.5 - - Ground No.7 - Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 u/s.143(2) Assessment u/s.153C

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. ()

x) Addition towards rental Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.5 - income Disallowance u/s.14A - - - Ground No.6 - Addition made u/s.43CA Ground No.5 - - Ground No.7 - Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 u/s.143(2) Assessment u/s.153C

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. ()

x) Addition towards rental Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.5 - income Disallowance u/s.14A - - - Ground No.6 - Addition made u/s.43CA Ground No.5 - - Ground No.7 - Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 u/s.143(2) Assessment u/s.153C

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. ()

x) Addition towards rental Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.5 - income Disallowance u/s.14A - - - Ground No.6 - Addition made u/s.43CA Ground No.5 - - Ground No.7 - Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 u/s.143(2) Assessment u/s.153C