SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. CASTROL INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. ITA no.7922/Mum./2010 – A.Y. 2003–04 11. In this appeal, the Department has raised the following grounds:– “1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied in relation to the transfer pricing

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri P.J. Pardiwallaa/w Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue by : Shri Saurabh Deshpande Date of Hearing – 25.04.2018 Date of Order – 20.07.2018 O R D E R PER SAKTIJITDEY, J.M. The aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against assessment order dated 29th October 2010, passed under section 143(3) r/w 144C of the Income

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

section 271(1)(c) provides for penalty on TP adjustment. Both the Explanations operate in two different fields and separate parameters are required to be tested for levying penalty under these 2 Explanations. Explanation 7 is a special provision dealing with penalty on transfer pricing

JSW ENERGY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING) 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

1)/10D(2) is a separate matter. The issue is non-production when called for by Transfer Pricing Officer and for this reasonable cause is to be established. 13. The sole factual reason adduced is the appointment of CFO. The new CFO has been appointed one month prior to same. Hence the non-production of the same before Transfer Pricing

CAPRICON REALTY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

section 271(1)(c) in this case. Accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied.” 7. Following the aforesaid precedent, which has been rendered under identical circumstances, we set-aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. SYMANTIC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

transfer pricing adjustment of ` 92 lakh to the arm's length price proves that the price charged was not at arm’s length. Referring to Explanation–7 to section 271(1

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income, without appreciating the fact as under- a) The Ld. AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1

M/S. MERCATOR LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

section 153 is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the final assessment order dated 2 April 2014 is time barred and liable to be quashed. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted that the grounds of appeal no. 1 to 24 pertains to transfer pricing issues and ground

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

transfer pricing addition of INR 7,46,225/-. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) of deleting penalty under Section 271(1

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

transfer pricing audits being simultaneously carried out, etc. In any case the assessee had filed partial details vide letter dated 18.10.2013. 4.2.2 The learned A.R. for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 8 of the impugned order when the learned CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 271(1

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

transfer pricing audits being simultaneously carried out, etc. In any case the assessee had filed partial details vide letter dated 18.10.2013. 4.2.2 The learned A.R. for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 8 of the impugned order when the learned CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 271(1

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

transfer pricing audits being simultaneously carried out, etc. In any case the assessee had filed partial details vide letter dated 18.10.2013. 4.2.2 The learned A.R. for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 8 of the impugned order when the learned CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 271(1

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

transfer pricing audits being simultaneously carried out, etc. In any case the assessee had filed partial details vide letter dated 18.10.2013. 4.2.2 The learned A.R. for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 8 of the impugned order when the learned CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 271(1

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

transfer pricing audits being simultaneously carried out, etc. In any case the assessee had filed partial details vide letter dated 18.10.2013. 4.2.2 The learned A.R. for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 8 of the impugned order when the learned CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 271(1

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

transfer pricing audits being simultaneously carried out, etc. In any case the assessee had filed partial details vide letter dated 18.10.2013. 4.2.2 The learned A.R. for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 8 of the impugned order when the learned CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 271(1