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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section

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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section

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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section

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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section

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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section

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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section

VISEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING )-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

transfer pricing order dated 28.10.2019 has considered comparable market rate for corporate guarantee commission @1.5% and accordingly has made adjustment to the ALP in respect of Corporate Guarantee by 0.5% as the assessee has already charged guarantee commission @ 1%, amounting to Rs. 1,34,40,410/-. Therefore, contention of the assessee is rejected. Visen Industries Ltd. 5.8 Thus, in view

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

271C and Section 273B of the Act in the case of CIT v.\nThomas Muthoot reported in (2015) 61 taxmann.com 76 (Kerala). The\nassessee pleaded that he was under the bonafide belief that under Section\n194A, they were not liable to deduct tax at source on the interest paid by a\npartner to the firm and thus, pleaded ignorance

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION, INC, MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

271C and Section 273B of the Act in the case of CIT v. Thomas Muthoot reported in (2015) 61 taxmann.com 76 (Kerala). The assessee pleaded that he was under the bonafide belief that under Section 194A, they were not liable to deduct tax at source on the interest paid by a partner to the firm and thus, pleaded ignorance

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)

271C,section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F,section 271FA,section 271FB,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) or sub-section (1A), of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or] clause

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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

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

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] 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) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

ITO - 1(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S FILM WAVES COMBINES P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]}} [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (ad) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] {sub-section (1)[or sub-section (1A)] of section 8 C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 272BB or] [sub-section

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271 FA,] [section 271FBJ [section 271GJJ [section 271H,] 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)[or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section

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) of the Act empowers

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) of the Act empowers