MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned AO disbelieved

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Addition - Corporate guarantee 2,73,48,125/- 3. Disallowance under Section 35D 4,65,200/- 4. Disallowance of interest

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Addition - Corporate guarantee 2,73,48,125/- 3. Disallowance under Section 35D 4,65,200/- 4. Disallowance of interest

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former\nemployer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former\nemployer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case

TRENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T.-2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer of land and building forming part of industrial undertaking; when invested in setting up another industrial undertaking. The assessee had an ice factory; the land and buildings of which were acquired by the Government. The consideration was treated as long term capital gains as against which, the assessee claimed exemption 31 ITA NO.5775/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2007-08) & Other 12 files

M/S. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred, no such deduction would be admissible, ignoring the provisions of section 35D which do not contain any such provision in respect of sale of unit otherwise than amalgamation/demerger. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding that to determine standard rent of property under the Bombay Rent Control Act the reasonable rate of return should

RAYMOND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. -2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred, no such deduction would be admissible, ignoring the provisions of section 35D which do not contain any such provision in respect of sale of unit otherwise than amalgamation/demerger. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding that to determine standard rent of property under the Bombay Rent Control Act the reasonable rate of return should

STRIDES SHASUN LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment on issue of shares. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court,, the adjustment proposed by the' TPO on account of issue of shares is deleted. Accordingly, ground of objection number 16 of the assessee is allowed.” 20. We, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, reverse

SI GROUP-INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT -LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on additional grounds

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Si Group India Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Large Taxpayer Unit 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre No.1 Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Manish Kumar Singh

35D -Para 2 17,911 Transfer pricing-Para 3 3,95,34,685 Provision for creditors advance- 15,48,228 Para 6 Less: Royalty disallowed in A.Y. 05-06 - (3,94,432) 4,07,06,392 Para 7 -14,38,04,694 Short term capital gains as per 29.12.827 return of income Balance Business loss -14,08,91,867 Long

JSW ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical\npurposes

Transfer Pricing\nProvisions under the Income Tax Act.\n\n2.9.5 Proceeding further, finding defects in the assessee's\nmethodology to benchmark the same by External CUP in view\nof the fact that comparable entities were based in USA\nwhereas the loans was advanced to Mauritius entity and\nfurther, the credit rating of Mauritius AE would be much lower\nthan

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

transfer pricing adjustment made by the LD. TPO was just a mere difference of opinion and thus levy of penalty was unjustified. 3. The LD. CIT(A) has erred in making an incorrect statement that the LD. CIT(A) in the quantum order under Section 250 itself has mentioned that appellant has not acted in a bonafide manner while making

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

transfer pricing adjustment made by the LD. TPO was just a mere difference of opinion and thus levy of penalty was unjustified. 3. The LD. CIT(A) has erred in making an incorrect statement that the LD. CIT(A) in the quantum order under Section 250 itself has mentioned that appellant has not acted in a bonafide manner while making

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Pricing order passed by the TPO. Ground nos. 6 and 7 of the assessee’s cross objection is connected with this claim 20. Since the assessee has also raised an additional ground on this issue, all the grounds are taken up together subsequently for adjudication when we deal with the additional ground. 21. Ground no.4 of the assessee’s cross

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Pricing order passed by the TPO. Ground nos. 6 and 7 of the assessee’s cross objection is connected with this claim 20. Since the assessee has also raised an additional ground on this issue, all the grounds are taken up together subsequently for adjudication when we deal with the additional ground. 21. Ground no.4 of the assessee’s cross

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Pricing order passed by the TPO. Ground nos. 6 and 7 of the assessee’s cross objection is connected with this claim 20. Since the assessee has also raised an additional ground on this issue, all the grounds are taken up together subsequently for adjudication when we deal with the additional ground. 21. Ground no.4 of the assessee’s cross

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Pricing order passed by the TPO. Ground nos. 6 and 7 of the assessee’s cross objection is connected with this claim 20. Since the assessee has also raised an additional ground on this issue, all the grounds are taken up together subsequently for adjudication when we deal with the additional ground. 21. Ground no.4 of the assessee’s cross

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Pricing order passed by the TPO. Ground nos. 6 and 7 of the assessee’s cross objection is connected with this claim 20. Since the assessee has also raised an additional ground on this issue, all the grounds are taken up together subsequently for adjudication when we deal with the additional ground. 21. Ground no.4 of the assessee’s cross