PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) to the appellant’s income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that: a) There was no failure on the part of the Appellant keep and maintain any information required by sub-section (1) of section

ASST. CIT 32 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KAPU GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Comm. Of Income Tax 32(2), M/S Kapu Gems, 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, E Tower, Ec-3021, Bharat C-41 To C-43, G Block Bkc, Vs. Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Bandra East, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadfk 3266 D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Deharia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92D(3) of I.T. Act. If a default is established then default is established then escape route is section 273B

THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS AG ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING CIRCLE -4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

transfer pricing study 4. That the Hon’ble CTT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty under Section 271G of the Act, by holding that there was no reasonable cause for alleged failure to comply with Section 271G of the Act, in total disregard of the submissions put forth by the Appellant demonstrating that reasonable cause did exist in terms

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

transferred 1,99,300 shares of Rashal Agrotech Limited held by it to the Investment Trust of India for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 4,28,99,325/-. Thus, in the assessment year in question, the assessee was liable to repay the loan/inter-corporate deposit amounting to Rs. 4,29,04,722/- to the Investment Trust of India and receive

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

transferred 1,99,300 shares of Rashal Agrotech Limited held by it to the Investment Trust of India for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 4,28,99,325/-. Thus, in the assessment year in question, the assessee was liable to repay the loan/inter-corporate deposit amounting to Rs. 4,29,04,722/- to the Investment Trust of India and receive

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

transferred 1,99,300 shares of Rashal Agrotech Limited held by it to the Investment Trust of India for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 4,28,99,325/-. Thus, in the assessment year in question, the assessee was liable to repay the loan/inter-corporate deposit amounting to Rs. 4,29,04,722/- to the Investment Trust of India and receive

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

transferred 1,99,300 shares of Rashal Agrotech Limited held by it to the Investment Trust of India for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 4,28,99,325/-. Thus, in the assessment year in question, the assessee was liable to repay the loan/inter-corporate deposit amounting to Rs. 4,29,04,722/- to the Investment Trust of India and receive

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

transferred 1,99,300 shares of Rashal Agrotech Limited held by it to the Investment Trust of India for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 4,28,99,325/-. Thus, in the assessment year in question, the assessee was liable to repay the loan/inter-corporate deposit amounting to Rs. 4,29,04,722/- to the Investment Trust of India and receive

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

transferred 1,99,300 shares of Rashal Agrotech Limited held by it to the Investment Trust of India for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 4,28,99,325/-. Thus, in the assessment year in question, the assessee was liable to repay the loan/inter-corporate deposit amounting to Rs. 4,29,04,722/- to the Investment Trust of India and receive

ASST CIT 19(1), MUMBAI vs. D A JHAVERI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Assessing Officer and CO of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafd0295J Co No. 120/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1971/Mum/2017 For Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022

Transfer Pricing Officer may be relevant for determination of Arm’s Length price. But was asked for the first time, not question by ld TPO in past TP Assessments, therefore, assessee has a belief that such information is not required as well as not available, therefore , the assessee has ‘reasonable cause’ under section 273B

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

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.(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(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

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