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 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

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

253 of Income tax Act are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals)- 54, Mumbai for assessment year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee has raised one common ground of appeal in all assessment years, on disallowance under section14A, thus on the request of parties all appeals were clubbed together, heard and are decided by common

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

253 13,81,28,572 2,38,87,498 1,82,30,608 14,37,85,46 8,39,08,700 4,57,61,781 --- 2 Office 16,39,85,153 -- 33,17,344 1,77,53,560 14,95,48,937 7,06,92,897 --- 72,79,798 1,23,32,458 6,56,40,237 2

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

253/– was reduced to Rs. 13,380.68 crores for the purpose of charging dividend distribution tax. Therefore, both the parties are aggrieved with the appellate order and are in appeal before us. 2. The assessee is appellant in ITA No. 1935/MUM/2020 raising following grounds of appeal: - “GROUND NO. 1: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

253/– was reduced to Rs. 13,380.68 crores for the purpose of charging dividend distribution tax. Therefore, both the parties are aggrieved with the appellate order and are in appeal before us. 2. The assessee is appellant in ITA No. 1935/MUM/2020 raising following grounds of appeal: - “GROUND NO. 1: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

O.C TANNER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is, accordingly, he appeal is, accordingly, allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 O.C. Tanner India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(1), No. 2, Lave 7 Tower 2, Phase Ii, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raiaskaran Techpark Andheri Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Sakinaka S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aabco 1031 F Appellant Respondent

section 253, which empowers it to adjudicate appeals against final 253, which empowers it to adjudicate appeals against final 253, which empowers it to adjudicate appeals against final assessment orders passed by the AO. The DRP not being an assessment orders passed by the AO. The DRP not being an assessment orders passed by the AO. The DRP not being

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(3), 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

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

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

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)

price fixed separately and charged. "Undertaking" is explained in Explanation Ito section 2(19AA). According to this Explanation, as we noted already above, includes any part of an undertaking or a unit or division of an undertaking or a business activity as a whole. Revenue's case is that some of the items like motor car and building has been

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

253,73,00,819 5. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustments. The Assessing Officer, besides the TP adjustment also made additions on the corporate tax front as listed below – (1) Disallowance under section 14A Rs. 6,79,072/- (2) Denial of deduction under section 80IC Unit I Rs. 12,10,78,108/- Unit

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section

ASST CIT CIR 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO.P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

253 of the Act against the order dated 28 January 2016 (received on 1 February 2016) passed by the CO No.145/Mum/2016 ITA No.1794 & 1715/Mum/2016 Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd.; A.Y. 11-12 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-4(3)(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned AO], in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

253 of the Act against the order dated 28 January 2016 (received on 1 February 2016) passed by the CO No.145/Mum/2016 ITA No.1794 & 1715/Mum/2016 Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd.; A.Y. 11-12 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-4(3)(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned AO], in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2)(a)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 87,61,130 representing part of the payment made for encashment of leave. He ought not to have done