ACIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Pricing Officer u/s 92CA(1) of the Act on 11/01/2008. The jurisdiction of the ld. AO (i.e DCIT Circle 7(3), Mumbai) was assigned to the Additional CIT Range 7(3), Mumbai on 05/05/2008. Subsequently a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 29/07/2008 was issued by the ld.Additional CIT on the assessee. The assessment

LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

transfer is planned followed by scoping of work that needs to be done onsite as it requires proximity to customer and the work that can be offshored. Second, there is a need of certain technical staff to be onsite for better understanding of customer's ongoing requirements and translating the same to the offshore team for cost effective and timely

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

251(1)(a) which, inter alia, extend to\n\"enhance.....the assessment\", the powers of the Dispute Resolution\nPanel, under section 144C(8) enhancing the \"variations\" proposed in the\ndraft assessment order, and, accordingly, when a specific \"variation\" in\nrespect of an item is not proposed in the draft assessment order, the\nDispute Resolution Panel is denuded of the powers

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

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

price of ₹ 60/- per share. Dish TV India Ltd is also a company forming part of Essel group of companies and it is engaged in the business of providing DTH services. Dish TV India Ltd is a company in which public are substantially interested and its shares are listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

price of ₹ 60/- per share. Dish TV India Ltd is also a company forming part of Essel group of companies and it is engaged in the business of providing DTH services. Dish TV India Ltd is a company in which public are substantially interested and its shares are listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the letter of comfort.\nIn view of our findings rendered in assessee's appeal on a similar issue,\nground no.1 raised in Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n38. The issue arising in grounds no.2, 10, 11, and 12, raised in Revenue's\nappeal, pertains to allowability of expenditure under section

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the letter of comfort.\nIn view of our findings rendered in assessee's appeal on a similar issue,\nground no.1 raised in Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n30. The issue arising in ground no.2, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to\nallowability of expenditure under section 35(2AB) of the Act.\n31. The brief

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

251.\n2. Erred in proposing transfer pricing adjustment of INR 88,71,465 to the\nincome of the Appellant.\nTransfer pricing provisions not applicable in absence of \"income\"\n3. Erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the\ntransaction of discharge of purchase consideration by the Appellant\npursuant to a scheme of merger approved by the National Company

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the letter of comfort.\nIn view of our findings rendered in assessee's appeal on a similar issue,\nground no.1 raised in Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n38. The issue arising in grounds no.2, 10, 11, and 12, raised in Revenue's\nappeal, pertains to allowability of expenditure under section

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

B. ARUNKUMAR CAPITAL & CREDIT SERVICES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

251 (Bang.)]\n(υ) JMS Mining (P) Ltd. v. Pr.CIT [130 taxтапп.com 118 (Kol.)]”\n3.2 The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of\ncoordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Naik Sea Foods Pvt.\nLtd. Vs. PCIT in ITA no. 490/Mum/2021 dated 26/11/2021 and\ndecision of Inter Gold India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA No.\n4400/Mum/2023

MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

251-252 of paper book. He submitted that from ITBA Portal, it is evident that all submissions were made by the assessee before the authorities below. He thus submitted that, the ratio laid down by the decision Max Hospitals and Allied Services; A. Y.2018-19 referred to hereinabove in assessee’s own case is not applicable to the present facts

JUNGHEINRICH LIFT TRUCK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Asst. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited 203 204, 2 N D Floor Tax Vs. Delphi A Wing, Central Avenue, Circle 15(2)(2) Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Mumbai-400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccj7808G

2 (3) (1), Mumbai (the learned TPO) for examination of arm's-length price of the international transaction. 05. The only international transaction in dispute is reimbursement of expenses, which has been determined by the assessee to be at arm's-length price by adopting any other method. During the year under consideration the assessee has paid ₹ 3,251

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails