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. 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

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)(b

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)(b

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)(b

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)(b

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)(b

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)(b

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)(b

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

price and thereafter place orders on behalf of the prospective buyers with you as per samples given to us. Sometimes, we get samples from you which we show to various customers and book orders on your behalf. It is also placed on record after the goods are shipped from India you send a duplicate copy of documents. We contact

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

price and thereafter place orders on behalf of the prospective buyers with you as per samples given to us. Sometimes, we get samples from you which we show to various customers and book orders on your behalf. It is also placed on record after the goods are shipped from India you send a duplicate copy of documents. We contact

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

transfer pricing adjustment. Further, the Assessing Officer made few more additions / disallowances, one amongst them being disallowance of depreciation claimed on certain assets at the higher rate of 80% treating it as energy saving device. The depreciation claimed amounted to ` 10,18,636. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to justify its claim of higher

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

271(1)(c), where proceedings is to be initiated in course of assessment such requirement is not needed here since law does not prescribe so. Moreover even before Assessment year 2014-15 Page 9 of 17 order under section 92CA(3) of TPO and the assessment order the penalty proceedings under section 271G was initiated. 16. In regard to application

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

b a i [ I T A N o . 1716/Mum/2017] • DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi [I.T.A .No.-6336/DeI/2012] g) It is submitted that the AO has wrongly levied penalty under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) for TP adjustment. In fact Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) provides for penalty

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)

b) CIT Vs. T. Govindankutty Menon (1989) 178 ITR 509 (ker) c) Hotel & Allied Trades (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 619 (Ker)” The A.O observed that the assessee wrongly claimed expenses leading to higher losses to be carried forward and set off against future business profits, wherein it was not entitled to claim said expenses as the assessee

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 93,12,637/- pertaining to Reimbursement of Expenses of salary and related cost on deputation of personnel in India. (1) Ground No. 8: Levy of interest under Section 234D and 244A of the Act (m) Ground No. 9: Incorrect computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act (n) Ground No. 10 : Non-Grant

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB