ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1. Therefore, the transfer pricing officer‟s order under section 92CA (3) dated 27/1/2021 passed for the impugned assessment year was found to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1. Therefore, the transfer pricing officer‟s order under section 92CA (3) dated 27/1/2021 passed for the impugned assessment year was found to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1. Therefore, the transfer pricing officer‟s order under section 92CA (3) dated 27/1/2021 passed for the impugned assessment year was found to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263

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

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and accordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the distributors. 7.2. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the upfront discount extended to the pre-paid distributors by terming the arrangement as 'Principal to Agent instead

3I INFOTECH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

1 inserts order under section 92CA by the transfer-pricing officer. Thus, it is clear that the order passed under section 92CA by the learned TPO was not subject to revision under section 263

JMJ GANPATIJI MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal

JMJ GANPATIJI MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal

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

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

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing addition of\nINR 4,14,86,237/-.\n15.2. Having heard the rival submission and on perusal of the record\nwe find that this is a recurring issue. Both the sides agreed that\nfor the Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10, in identical facts\nand circumstances, this issue was restored to the file of\nTPO/Assessing Officer with directions

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

transfer pricing addition of\nINR 4,14,86,237/-.\n15.2 Having heard the rival submission and on perusal of the record\nwe find that this is a recurring issue. Both the sides agreed that\nfor the Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10, in identical facts\nand circumstances, this issue was restored to the file of\nTPO/Assessing Officer with directions

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

price which is one of the two recognized methods of valuation of the closing stock. 7.5 It cannot be the effect of the RBI guidelines that the total income for the purpose of Income Tax has to be computed in accordance with the enjoinment of these guidelines. These are only meant as guiding factors to determine the commercial profit

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

price which is one of the two recognized methods of valuation of the closing stock. 7.5 It cannot be the effect of the RBI guidelines that the total income for the purpose of Income Tax has to be computed in accordance with the enjoinment of these guidelines. These are only meant as guiding factors to determine the commercial profit

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

price which is one of the two recognized methods of\nvaluation of the closing stock.\n7.5 It cannot be the effect of the RBI guidelines that the total income for the\npurpose of Income Tax has to be computed in accordance with the enjoinment\nof these guidelines. These are only meant as guiding factors to determine the\ncommercial profit

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

APURVA NATVAR PARIKH & CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

section 263 and Explanation 2 of the Act thereof as below:\nSection-263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.\n(1)The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any\nproceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the\nAssessing Officer