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

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

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 CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing - adjustments:- Rs. 3,62,01,946/-\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned Assessing Officer grossly erred in adding a sum of Rs.\n3,62,01,946/-\nu/s 92 of the Act, based on the order of the learned\nTransfer Pricing Officer u/s 92A(3) of the Act, in respect

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

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(IT) CIR. 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Trent House, First Floor, Large Tax Units (Ltu) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaics1404P Appellant Respondednt

transfer pricing adjustment should not be denied to the assessee. The said show cause notice was replied by assessee vide reply dated 18-12-2017. The assessee explained in its reply that in the draft assessment order held that the tax holiday benefit under section 10B should be restricted to the gross total business of the assessee. Accordingly

SULZER PUMPS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE-15 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

253 CUP of Royalty thereof 6. Technical Service rendered, 1,17,91,101, Other method consideration received thereof 7. Professional services availed, and Fees 4,34,858 Other Method paid thereof 8. Marketing services (agency services) 1,70,99,895 CUP received and Commission paid thereof 9. Marketing services (agency services) 28,62,597 CUP rendered and Commission received thereof

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)

Pricing-II) passed the assessment order under section 92CA(3) of the Act. In the said order, it is mentioned that a reference under section 92CA(1) of IT Act was received on 16.10.2003 from the Dy. Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle 7(1), Mumbai. (Copy of the said order is submitted during the course of hearing

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

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 14 A of the act. The learned AO disbelieved

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

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 14 A of the act. The learned AO disbelieved

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. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was made in order to determine the arm’s length price of the international transaction, the assessee is having with its 4 ITA 7104/Mum/2017 ITA 7404/Mum/2018 Mondelez India Foods P Ltd Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO, vide order dated 31/10/2016 proposed a total adjustment of Rs.253,73,00,819/- as per the break up given below