DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA? b) WHETHER in facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating the finding of the TPO that the assessee's generating unit cannot as such

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegemological Institute Of America, Inc. V. Acit (International Taxation) C/O Gia India Laboratory Pvt. Ltd Circle-2(3)(2) 10Th Floor, Trade Centre 17Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400098 Pan: Aadcg7962K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. J.D. Mistry, Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Ketan Ved Department Represented By Shri Hement Kumar C. Leuva :

Transfer Pricing Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

260A". Grasim Industries Ltd. 2) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,39,259/- towards contribution towards local organizations, relying upon the CIT(A)' order in the assessee's own case for Α.Υ.1996-97 to 2008-09 which have not been accepted

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

price as defined in clause (ii) of\nsection 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic\ntransaction referred to in section 92BA?\nb) WHETHER in facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not\nappreciating the finding of the TPO that the assessee's generating unit cannot as such

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

260A\".\n\n2) \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the disallowance of Rs.4,39,259/- towards contribution towards local\norganizations, relying upon the CIT(A)' order in the assessee's own case for\nA.Y.1996-97 to 2008-09 which have not been accepted by the department and\nfurther appeal

AHMED P. SURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

transfer of long-term securities (Shares)\n Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee-individual engaged in\nbusiness of trading in shares claimed long term capital gains\narising out of sale of shares as exemption under section 10(38)\nAssessing officer denied claim and made certain additions\ninto assessee's income on grounds that said gains were\nearned through bogus penny stock

DCIT - CC -7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

price volatility and potential manipulation with respect to penny\nstocks are pointed out by the Revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the\ncase of PCIT(Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [103 taxmann.com 48] have\nheld that mere filing of formal documents was insufficient in the context of\nproving triple criteria provided in section

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S LOTUS BUILDSPACE LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

price volatility and potential manipulation with respect to penny\nstocks are pointed out by the Revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the\ncase of PCIT(Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [103 taxmann.com 48] have\nheld that mere filing of formal documents was insufficient in the context of\nproving triple criteria provided in section

DCIT - CC -7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

price volatility and potential manipulation with respect to penny stocks are pointed out by the Revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT(Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [103 taxmann.com 48] have held that mere filing of formal documents was insufficient in the context of proving triple criteria provided in section

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. DEVELOPERS AND REALTORS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

price volatility and potential manipulation with respect to penny stocks are pointed out by the Revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT(Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [103 taxmann.com 48] have held that mere filing of formal documents was insufficient in the context of proving triple criteria provided in section

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S LOTUS LOGISTICS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

price volatility and potential manipulation with respect to penny stocks are pointed out by the Revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT(Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [103 taxmann.com 48] have held that mere filing of formal documents was insufficient in the context of proving triple criteria provided in section

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC.,UNITED STATES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(3)(2) - MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assesse are allowed partly for statistical\npurposes

Pricing Agreement ['APA'], if any, entered into by GIA India\nLaboratory Private Limited with the Central Board of Direct Taxes ['CBDT'].\n8 : 2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case,\nand the law prevailing on the subject, the amount of royalty taxable in its hands for\nthe year under consideration should be restricted

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC.,UNITED STATES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assesse are allowed partly for statistical\npurposes

Pricing Agreement ['APA'], if any, entered into by GIA India\nLaboratory Private Limited with the Central Board of Direct Taxes ['CBDT'].\n8 : 2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case,\nand the law prevailing on the subject, the amount of royalty taxable in its hands for\nthe year under consideration should be restricted

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

260A, 2nd Floor, Afcons House, 16, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Azad Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Nagar, P.O. Post Box No. 11978, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400053. PAN : AAACA9067G Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri J.D. Mistri / Nitesh Joshi, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD (M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD ).,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer in order to determine the arm’s length price of the international transactions. The TPO made a TP adjustment of Rs.7,90,77,518. The AO passed a draft assessment order date 30.09.2021 in which the AO retained the disallowances made u/s. 143(1) Rs.6,05,18,177 and besides the TP adjustment the AO further made

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD (M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD ).,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer in order to determine the arm’s length price of the international transactions. The TPO made a TP adjustment of Rs.7,90,77,518. The AO passed a draft assessment order date 30.09.2021 in which the AO retained the disallowances made u/s. 143(1) Rs.6,05,18,177 and besides the TP adjustment the AO further made

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KHIMJI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

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

price than the net worth of these companies are also not relevant in so far as the loan transaction of the assessee is concerned. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act and the consequential interest thereon of Rs. 3,17,213/- for the reasons as under

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. KHIMJI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

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

price than the net worth of these companies are also not relevant in so far as the loan transaction of the assessee is concerned. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act and the consequential interest thereon of Rs. 3,17,213/- for the reasons as under