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

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). The assessee is engaged in the business of shares

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

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). The assessee is engaged in the business of shares

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

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). The assessee is engaged in the business of shares

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

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). The assessee is engaged in the business of shares

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(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 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

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

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. 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

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.

price of the shares. Neither the genuineness of the receipt of loan / deposit nor the transaction of repayment of loan by way of adjustment through book entries carried out in the ordinary course of business has been doubted in the regular assessment. There is nothing on record to suggest that the amounts advanced by Investment Trust of India

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

price of the shares. Neither the genuineness of the receipt of loan/deposit nor the transaction of repayment of loan by way of adjustment through book entries carried out in the ordinary course of business has been doubted in the regular assessment. There is nothing on record to suggest that the amounts advanced by Investment Trust of India to the assessee

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

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

271E of the Act.  The CIT(A) held that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS and 269T by undertaking the transactions of accepting and repayment of loans/deposits through journal entries. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the ground that there was reasonable cause for making the transactions through journal M/s. Sanathnagar Enterprises Ltd., entries