ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

4) Notwithstanding anything contained in 14[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 15[sub- sections

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

4) Notwithstanding anything contained in 14[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 15[sub- sections

DY.CIT. CC.5(2) CENT. RG. -5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. USV PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter “Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 31.08.2020 & Order Dated 10.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Ay. 2013-14 Respectively. Since Issues In Both The Years Were The Same, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Agreed That There Is No Change Of Facts Or Position In Law Across Both These Years & Therefore Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. We Accordingly Dispose Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

transfer pricing adjustment. It is noted that since the TPO had initially rejected TNMM as the MAM and applied CUP, he had no occasion to examine the benchmarking exercise undertaken by the assessee under TNMM. Following the above order of this Tribunal in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12, we accordingly set aside the impugned order

DY.CIT C C 5(2) CENTRAL RG-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. USV PRIVATE LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter “Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 31.08.2020 & Order Dated 10.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Ay. 2013-14 Respectively. Since Issues In Both The Years Were The Same, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Agreed That There Is No Change Of Facts Or Position In Law Across Both These Years & Therefore Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. We Accordingly Dispose Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

transfer pricing adjustment. It is noted that since the TPO had initially rejected TNMM as the MAM and applied CUP, he had no occasion to examine the benchmarking exercise undertaken by the assessee under TNMM. Following the above order of this Tribunal in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12, we accordingly set aside the impugned order

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

245D (1) of the act and therefore the assessment proceedings were revived. 014. For AY 10-11, notice u/s 153A was issued on 5/1/2017 against which the assessee filed return of income on 13/1/2017 at returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/–. Notice u/s 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017 and assessment proceedings were initiated. 015. During the course of assessment

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

245D (1) of the act and therefore the assessment proceedings were revived. 014. For AY 10-11, notice u/s 153A was issued on 5/1/2017 against which the assessee filed return of income on 13/1/2017 at returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/–. Notice u/s 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017 and assessment proceedings were initiated. 015. During the course of assessment

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

245D (1) of the act and therefore the assessment proceedings were revived. 014. For AY 10-11, notice u/s 153A was issued on 5/1/2017 against which the assessee filed return of income on 13/1/2017 at returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/–. Notice u/s 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017 and assessment proceedings were initiated. 015. During the course of assessment

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

245D (1) of the act and therefore the assessment proceedings were revived. 014. For AY 10-11, notice u/s 153A was issued on 5/1/2017 against which the assessee filed return of income on 13/1/2017 at returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/–. Notice u/s 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017 and assessment proceedings were initiated. 015. During the course of assessment

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

245D (1) of the act and therefore the assessment proceedings were revived. 014. For AY 10-11, notice u/s 153A was issued on 5/1/2017 against which the assessee filed return of income on 13/1/2017 at returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/–. Notice u/s 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017 and assessment proceedings were initiated. 015. During the course of assessment

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

245D (1) of the act and therefore the assessment proceedings were revived. 014. For AY 10-11, notice u/s 153A was issued on 5/1/2017 against which the assessee filed return of income on 13/1/2017 at returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/–. Notice u/s 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017 and assessment proceedings were initiated. 015. During the course of assessment

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the amount

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

245D, the amount on which interest was payable\nunder sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the\ncase may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced\naccordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the\nAssessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of\ndemand in the prescribed form specifying the amount