DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

269T to attract levy of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The assessment year involved herein is AY 2003-04. 3. The respondent-assessee, a Public Limited Company, is a member of the National Stock Exchange and is also a Category I Merchant Banker, registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

269T to attract levy of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The assessment year involved herein is AY 2003-04. 3. The respondent-assessee, a Public Limited Company, is a member of the National Stock Exchange and is also a Category I Merchant Banker, registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

269T to attract levy of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The assessment year involved herein is AY 2003-04. 3. The respondent-assessee, a Public Limited Company, is a member of the National Stock Exchange and is also a Category I Merchant Banker, registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

269T to attract levy of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The assessment year involved herein is AY 2003-04. 3. The respondent-assessee, a Public Limited Company, is a member of the National Stock Exchange and is also a Category I Merchant Banker, registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

transferred shares worth Rs.4,28,99,325/- to Investment Trust of India. Thus, in the assessment year in question, the assessee was liable to repay the loan/ inter-corporate deposit amounting to Rs.429,04,722/- to the Investment Trust of India and receive Rs.4,28, 99,325/- from Investment Trust of India towards the sale price of the shares. Both

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.CC-7(3)., MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(SUCCESSSOR TO PALAVA DWELLERS PVT LTD), MUMBAI

transferred 66.67% of value of advertisement services to LPLDPL for adjustment against the flat booked in LPLDPL by BCCL and the balance amount was paid through proper banking channels. This adjustment was given effect by way of the above mentioned journal entry. Copy of Entry passed in the books of assessee company is attached as Annexure-III. The Assessee submits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO M/S LODHA DEVELOPER PVT LTD), MUMBAI

transferred 66.67% of value of advertisement services to LPLDPL for adjustment against the flat booked in LPLDPL by BCCL and the balance amount was paid through proper banking channels. This adjustment was given effect by way of the above mentioned journal entry. Copy of Entry passed in the books of assessee company is attached as Annexure-III. The Assessee submits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO SHREENIVAS COTTON MILLS LTD), MUMBAI

transferred 66.67% of value of advertisement services to LPLDPL for adjustment against the flat booked in LPLDPL by BCCL and the balance amount was paid through proper banking channels. This adjustment was given effect by way of the above mentioned journal entry. Copy of Entry passed in the books of assessee company is attached as Annexure-III. The Assessee submits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD), MUMBAI

transferred 66.67% of value of advertisement services to LPLDPL for adjustment against the flat booked in LPLDPL by BCCL and the balance amount was paid through proper banking channels. This adjustment was given effect by way of the above mentioned journal entry. Copy of Entry passed in the books of assessee company is attached as Annexure-III. The Assessee submits

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)

Transfer Pricing are not applicable. Even otherwise the condition of receipt of amount as decided by agreement dated 20.11.2009 are at ALP. The agreed terms and condition were not influence by each other. Without prejudice to the 9 ITA No. 649 & 1854 Mum 16, C.O. 33 Mum 16 M/s Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. contention, the ld. AR submits that

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. MACROTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result , both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

transfer balances to consolidate debts, to correct clerical errors etc. Further, the Tribunal records that as observed by this Court in Triumph International Finance (supra) that journal entries constituted a recognized modes of recording of transactions and in the absence of any adverse finding by the authorities that the journal entries were made with a view to achieve purposes

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DWELLERS PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue and CO of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

transferring the asset and the liabilities to the sister concerns by way of journal entries does not constitute the loan or deposit in term of money within the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. It was also explained that back to back entries while receiving payment or making 5 CO. 111/Mum/2018 final payment is always by account

SATIDHAM SYNTEX LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Satidham Syntex Ltd. Acit Range-5(3), Vajras, No. 1445, 28Th Main, Mumbai. South End ‘A’ Cross, Vs. Jaya Nagar, 9Th Block, Banglore-560069. Pan: Aafcs6656N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pending Advances amount to Miss. B. Sarita and Mr. Prashant. The transactions are merely book entry which does not attract the provision of section 269SS and 269T. Hence, no penalty u/s 271D and 271E can be levied. The assessee has received the payment by Account Payee Cheques and extinguishes its liability by mutual consent by passing Journal Entry

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

transfer taking place between each other. Therefore, according to the assessee, penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not attracted. However, Additional CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act by separate orders dated 10.09.2014 passed u/s 271D/271E of the Act respectively against the assessee. Aggrieved by the penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

transfer taking place between each other. Therefore, according to the assessee, penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not attracted. However, Additional CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act by separate orders dated 10.09.2014 passed u/s 271D/271E of the Act respectively against the assessee. Aggrieved by the penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

transfer taking place between each other. Therefore, according to the assessee, penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not attracted. However, Additional CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act by separate orders dated 10.09.2014 passed u/s 271D/271E of the Act respectively against the assessee. Aggrieved by the penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

transfer taking place between each other. Therefore, according to the assessee, penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not attracted. However, Additional CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act by separate orders dated 10.09.2014 passed u/s 271D/271E of the Act respectively against the assessee. Aggrieved by the penalty

DCIT (CC) 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S BELLISSIMO COWN BUILDMART P. LTD, MUMBAI

1. 3038/Mum/2019 2014-15

transferred 50% of the value of advertisement services to SNCML for adjustment against the flat booked in SNCML and the balance amount was paid through proper banking channels. Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee which had given advance to employee for expenses to be incurred at the project developed by the assessee. However