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)

price on 31 January 2018 or at least on the date of transfer was a necessary condition. The provision did not contemplate, and indeed could not accommodate, a situation where the shares were unlisted on the date of transfer and listed only subsequently. The mechanism was designed for already listed securities, not for those which acquired that status later

DCIT -26(1) , MUMBAI vs. SHREYAS BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

transfer of possession of land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and hence, no capital gains arose in the relevant year. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. The first issue in dispute before us is, whether the assessee can be said to be engaged in the business

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

2-3 raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 7. Now on the issue of chargeability of capital gains u/s. 45 of the act,the Ld.AO treated the book value of theassest as on the date of conversation as capital gains in the hands of asseessee. This in our view is not the correct method to determine the capital gains

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction

MAIMOON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

47)(vi) of the Act in AY 2010-11, since all material rights including possession were transferred to the Purchaser in that year, consideration was discharged in that year and the Purchaser commenced enjoyment and use of the land, even though formal registration occurred later. The Ld. AO erred in disregarding the documentary and circumstantial evidence demonstrating that the buyer

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

47) of section\n2 of the Income-tax Act.\n2. Consideration must be received or must accrue as a result of\nthe transfer and the consideration must be capable of being\ndetermined in monetary terms in order that the computation\nof capital gains may be made as required by section 48.\n3. Profits or gains must arise from the transfer

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

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has to be construed in accordance with the provisions construed in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has to be construed in accordance with the provisions construed in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property

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:

section 92A(2)(c) are satisfied. A perusal of Form 3CEB at page 70 to 95 of the paper book shows that while disclosing information in Clause 7 Part B i.e. the list of AEs, the assessee has disclosed the name of Hispano Carrocera –S.A at Sl.No.7 in Annexure -I and against the column nature of relationship with

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for\nother monetary consideration. Therefore, for the purpose of\napplicability of section 54, registration of document is not\nimperative.\n9. The appellant submits that for the purpose of section 54 of the\nAct what has to be seen is whether the appellant has invested the\ncapital gains toward

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

47,17,99,596/- in respect of discount extended to pre-paid distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROMELL HOUSING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the\nRevenue's Appeal is dismissed

2)(x) of the Act for\ndetermination of income of the assessee.\n10. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Raj Singh (D)\nTh.Lrs. vs. Gejo (D) Th.Lrs.&Ors.,in Civil Appeal No.9098 of 2013, vide\njudgment dated 02.01.2024, while examining the provisions of section 47 of\nthe Registration Act, 1908, which provides that a registered document

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

transfer pricing order and a valid draft assessment order, the Ld. AO cannot assume 46 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment under Section 144C of the Act and pass the consequential final assessment order. The decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of International Air Transport Association (supra) and Dimension

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

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