ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹5,82,51,214/- in view of determination of Arm's Length Price of international transaction under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by order dated 31st October, 2018, wherein on the international transaction of buy ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 back of shares of ₹65,62,50,000/- was upwardly revised

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

pricing officer (TPO). The learned TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹2,90,14, ,90,14,438/- to the value of the international to the value of the international transactions. The learned Assessing Officer after taking into transactions. The learned Assessing Officer after taking into transactions. The learned Assessing Officer after taking into account adjustment to the value of the international

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

price realised shall be subjected to capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

price realised shall be subjected to capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan

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

Price of international transaction at ₹18,10,34,113/-. II. Disallowance of warranty expenditure of ₹3,73,10,658/-. III. Disallowance of provision for commission of ₹1,70,99,895/-. IV. Disallowance under Section 40a(ia) of the Act of ₹3,63,69,080/-. Sulzes Pumps I Pvt. ltd.;AY 15-16 V. Addition on account of AIR information

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

transferred to some other account. (iv) It means that Bhanwarlal Jain Group companies are providing only accommodation entries and no genuine transactions. In the light of the above facts, the Ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.25 lakhs taken as loans/advances as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income

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

1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing

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

1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

254 of the Act and the appeal order on the issue was recalled. He submitted, that while deciding the issue afresh in ITA no. 7513/Mum./2010, dated 23rd March 2017, the Tribunal has held that the expenditure incurred for acquiring software for trading purpose is not in the nature of royalty. Hence, there is no requirement for deduction

HAPAG LLOYD INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

1)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nimesh Vora and Shri Jinal Shah Revenue by : Shri Jayant Kumar Date of Hearing – 15.07.2019 Date of Order – 27.09.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment orders, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of account of interest on loan to Associated Enterprises to the extent sustained by the CIT(A). 16.1. Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Assessee is identical to Ground No. III raised in appeal by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dismissed hereinabove. Both

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of account of interest on loan to Associated Enterprises to the extent sustained by the CIT(A). 16.1. Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Assessee is identical to Ground No. III raised in appeal by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dismissed hereinabove. Both

ASST CIT 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINCA DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit-11(3)(2), M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No. 33/Mum/2016 (Ita No. 649/Mum/16 (A.Y- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. (Tp)A 1854/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent)

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ITA No. 649 & 1854 Mum 16, C.O. 33 Mum 16 M/s Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. 1. This set of two cross appeal and one cross objection by assessee are directed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income

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

254 ITR 377/121 Taxman 706 wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm- chair of the businessman or in the position

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.6 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent M/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Jayant Kumar With Shri V. Jenerdhanan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018

254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeal by assessee are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [ld. CIT(A)] dated 30.01.2015 for Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. For Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Each

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

Transfer Pricing, 4 (1) (2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) to examine arm’s-length price of those international transactions. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 4. The learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA (3) on 31/10/2019 dealing with the international transactions as under: – i. On verification of Form No. 3CEB, the TPO noted that

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

transferred to the Appellant\n• Manufacturing and supply contracts are not an intangible asset as per\nAccounting Standard (AS)-26 issued by the Institute of Chartered\nAccountants of India\n2.4 Without prejudice to para 2.1 and 2.3 above, the learned DCIT and Hon'ble\nDRP erred in not considering the value of manufacturing contracts as Goodwill\nacquired from GSK, which

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