ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

2. Brief facts are, the assessee an Indian Company is a subsidiary of M/s. Beaumont Development Centre Holding Ltd. and part of the Accenture Group. The assessee is basically providing Software Development Services (SDS), Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) and Consultancy Services (CS) to its group entities worldwide. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

2. 66.00% Edelweiss Capital Ltd. 3. 13.88% IDC India Ltd. 4. 184.91% L&T Capital Co. Ltd. 5. 6.51% SERI Capital Markets Ltd. 6. Sumedha Fiscal Service Ltd. 48.84% 7. (segmental) Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. 209.19% 8. (segmental) 105.10% Arithmetic mean 8. Applying the arithmetic mean of 105.10%, the Transfer Pricing Officer worked out the arm's length price

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer\npricing matters made by the learned AO/TPO and upheld by the\nHon'ble DRP in respect of data processing and software services be\ndeleted.\nGround 2 - Disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses\namounting to Rs. 29,47,184\n2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO\nwhile giving effect to the directions

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

price at which the machinery was distributed by the assessee-firm to its partners as deemed gift and subjected the same to gift-tax. The issue was whether distribution of machinery was a transfer in the nature of sale, for a consideration. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court considered the expression of "transfer" under section 2(xxiv

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

price at which the machinery was distributed by the assessee-firm to its partners as deemed gift and subjected the same to gift-tax. The issue was whether distribution of machinery was a transfer in the nature of sale, for a consideration. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court considered the expression of "transfer" under section 2(xxiv

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

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

transfer' within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the application of section 50C of the Act is irresistible and unstoppable. No infirmity can be found in the action of the Assessing Officer. The impugned order under section 143(3) read with the subsequent rectified 13 Radharaman Constructions vs. ACIT order under section

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

section 10A / 10AA in respect of IPSA income following the direction of the Tribunal and DRP as referred to above. This ground is allowed. 47. Grounds no.24, 25, 26 and 27 are not pressed, hence, dismissed. 48. In view of our decision in ground no.23, the additional grounds being grounds no.28 and 29, have become infructuous, hence, dismissed

CARESTREAM HEALTH INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Carestream Health Inc Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Carestream Health Income Tax, Range-2(1)(1) India Private Limited Scindia House, M.M.Road Sunteck Centre Ballard Pier 1St Floor, Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 028 Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aaecc6050H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

2(47). Relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any right in it, which may not amount to sale, can also be considered as a transfer and any profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset is liable to be taxed under section 45. 11. When as a result of the reducing of the face

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

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

Section 80IB for Silvassa unit and found that assessee is claimed deduction on export incentive of DEPB of ₹7190,276/- by reducing it from the cost of material consumed. According to learned Assessing Officer, the above income is not derived from industrial under taking and therefore, to that extent deduction is reduced. The total income was computed

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

Section 80IB for Silvassa unit and found that assessee is claimed deduction on export incentive of DEPB of ₹7190,276/- by reducing it from the cost of material consumed. According to learned Assessing Officer, the above income is not derived from industrial under taking and therefore, to that extent deduction is reduced. The total income was computed

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

Section 80IB for Silvassa unit and found that assessee is claimed deduction on export incentive of DEPB of ₹7190,276/- by reducing it from the cost of material consumed. According to learned Assessing Officer, the above income is not derived from industrial under taking and therefore, to that extent deduction is reduced. The total income was computed

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

Section 80IB for Silvassa unit and found that assessee is claimed deduction on export incentive of DEPB of ₹7190,276/- by reducing it from the cost of material consumed. According to learned Assessing Officer, the above income is not derived from industrial under taking and therefore, to that extent deduction is reduced. The total income was computed

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

Section 80IB for Silvassa unit and found that assessee is claimed deduction on export incentive of DEPB of ₹7190,276/- by reducing it from the cost of material consumed. According to learned Assessing Officer, the above income is not derived from industrial under taking and therefore, to that extent deduction is reduced. The total income was computed

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

Section 80IB for Silvassa unit and found that assessee is claimed deduction on export incentive of DEPB of ₹7190,276/- by reducing it from the cost of material consumed. According to learned Assessing Officer, the above income is not derived from industrial under taking and therefore, to that extent deduction is reduced. The total income was computed

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

Section 80IB for Silvassa unit and found that assessee is claimed deduction on export incentive of DEPB of ₹7190,276/- by reducing it from the cost of material consumed. According to learned Assessing Officer, the above income is not derived from industrial under taking and therefore, to that extent deduction is reduced. The total income was computed