BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

251 of the Act and disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee therein instead of restricting the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income. The ITAT set aside the order of the AO as well as CIT(A). The High Court upheld the order of the ITAT and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. SYMANTIC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

transfer pricing adjustment has been admitted by Hon’ble High Court, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i. DCIT v/s M/s. Crisil Ltd. [ITA No 941/Mum/2008] (Mumbai ITAT) ii. M/s Nayan Builders and Developers P Ltd v/s ITO [ITA No. 2379/Murn./2009 iii. Sudhakar M Shetty

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

251 of the Act and disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee therein instead of restricting the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income. The ITAT set aside the order of the AO as well as CIT(A). The High Court upheld the order of the ITAT and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

251 of the Act and disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee therein instead of restricting the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income. The ITAT set aside the order of the AO as well as CIT(A). The High Court upheld the order of the ITAT and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

251 is allowable under section 37 of the Act; and 5.2 The CIT erred in holding that the learned AO has not verified whether only unavailed credits of the year under consideration have been allowed or cumulative credits of various years has also been allowed. Ground no 6 Without prejudice to Ground nos 1 & 2 above, the learned

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

prices or value generated is also on higher side in the first year in order to cover up the expenses mentioned above. The assessee submitted that these commission or agency charges also included out of pocket expenses which is the responsibility of the overseas agents to be incurred by them. It was also submitted that these overseas commission were paid

M/S. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

251(Guj). We have gone through the aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court and find that Gujarat High Court detailed in nouncertain terms that the cut-off date mentioned in the certificate issued by the DSIR would be of no relevance. What is to be seen is that the assessee was in indulging in R&D activity

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

1-449. 6. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee made two fold Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee made two fold Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee made two fold arguments, firstly, he submitted that transaction of the guarantee , he submitted that transaction of the guarantee , he submitted that transaction of the guarantee commission

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

1)(a)(ii) but also because in the CUP analysis, no adjustments are permissible in respect of costs incurred by the assessee. The critical factors being the market price and the factors affecting the market price, the cost aspect of a transaction is not germane to the adjustments under the CUP analysis. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

UNILIVER INDIA EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri M. Balaganesh

1 SCC 591; ii) Zakiya Begum and Ors. v/s Shanaz Ali &Ors., [2010] 9 SCC 280; and iii) CIT v/s Knight Frank India Pvt. Ltd., [2016] 72 taxmann.com 300 (Bom.). 9. Drawing our attention to the Finance Bill 2010, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted, the main purpose for which Explanation to sub– section (8) of section 144C

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

price and thereafter place orders on behalf of the prospective buyers with you as per samples given to us. Sometimes, we get samples from you which we show to various customers and book orders on your behalf. It is also placed on record after the goods are shipped from India you send a duplicate copy of documents. We contact

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

price and thereafter place orders on behalf of the prospective buyers with you as per samples given to us. Sometimes, we get samples from you which we show to various customers and book orders on your behalf. It is also placed on record after the goods are shipped from India you send a duplicate copy of documents. We contact

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

transfer pricing adjustment. He also disallowed claim u/s 35 (2AB) amounting to ₹ 3,876,000, disallowed advertisement expenditure of Rs 475,29,202/–, gift expenses of ₹ 1,650,000, addition on account of damaged stock of ₹ 6,603,000/–, disallowance u/s 14 A of Rs 1,00, ITA No.4675 & 3290/Mum/2015 Asian Paints Ltd; AY 10-11 26,816/–, disallowed

ASST CIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AJE INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground of appeal of the Revenue and cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustment. The cross-objectors contend that on the facts and in the objectors contend that on the facts and in the objectors contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.7284/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd Acit-7(3)(1) T-8B, 5Th Floor, Phoenix House, A-Wing Room No.142 G बनाम/ Phoenix Mill Compound Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 462 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-2914-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Urvi A. Mehta-Ld.Ar ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Harit -Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 26/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest Certain Additions / Adjustment Made In Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2018 Passed By Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-7(3)(1), Mumbai [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13), Pursuant To The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai

Transfer Pricing Officer in this case. The case law referred by the ld. Departmental Representative are distinguishable on the facts of this case. Upon perusal of the same, we find that TNMM method as adopted by the assessee in earlier years has constantly been accepted to be the Most Appropriate Method as against the observation of Ld. TPO that

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

Transfer pricing addition of INR 4,11,67,000/- (viii) Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act to the extent of INR 1,82,45,413/- [INR 3,94,71,017/- Less INR 2,12,25,604/-] (ix) Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act to the extent