WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

Transfer Pricing Grounds 5. erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs 45,85,659 on intangible assets acquired from WNS Global Services (UK) Limited by the Appellant contending that the rights acquired by the Appellant on acquisition of customer contracts do not fall under the definition of intangible assets under Section 32(1) of the Act. 6. erred in enhancing

ACIT, CIRCLE 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing jurisprudence duly recognize this fundamental fact and ensure that such pedantic and unresolved procedural issues, as have arisen in this case due to limitations of the prescribed methods of ascertaining arm's length price, are not allowed to come in the way of substantive justice..." d. Where methodology had not been explicitly mentioned by assessee

ACIT, CIR- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing jurisprudence duly recognize this fundamental fact and ensure that such pedantic and unresolved procedural issues, as have arisen in this case due to limitations of the prescribed methods of ascertaining arm's length price, are not allowed to come in the way of substantive justice..." d. Where methodology had not been explicitly mentioned by assessee

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section of the order to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, not being satisfied. g. Assessee respectfully submits that even considering the facts of the case, the stated M/s Hubtown Limited does not have any necessary beneficial interest in the share-holding of the Company and is not a related party u/s 44A

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

transferred in their names. Thus, the same are lying with the appellant as unclaimed property. In such a situation, the property/value of the shares is available with the appellant and possessed by it by virtue of business operation. However, the same is not existing in its books of account for the relevant year.” The assessee has sold the shares

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

transferred in his name for various reasons and thus this is the reason for the difference in number of shares as per the records maintained by the assessee which represents only a notional difference which would be resolved as and then the buyer takes delivery of the shares. The assessee also submitted that the said balance of Rs.27

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

transferred in his name for various reasons and thus this is the reason for the difference in number of shares as per the records maintained by the assessee which represents only a notional difference which would be resolved as and then the buyer takes delivery of the shares. The assessee also submitted that the said balance of Rs.27

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

44A or the assessee was under compulsion to dispose of all the non-\nbanking assets under section 9, income earned by the assessee must be treated as\nprofits made from the resale of the stock-in-trade and most be treated as the profits of\nthe money lending business. The revenue further submitted that due to the\namalgamation character

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

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

44A or the assessee was under compulsion to dispose of all the non-\nbanking assets under section 9, income earned by the assessee must be treated as\nprofits made from the resale of the stock-in-trade and most be treated as the profits of\nthe money lending business. The revenue further submitted that due to the\namalgamation character

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, both the appeals preferred by the Revenue are\ndismissed

pricing risk assessment and\nmarketing of the products. Their job involves making\nestimates of ultimate out-come of insurable events. In the\nbusiness of insurance the product cost is an abstraction,\ndepending on the timing issues, variability issues and risk\nparameters. One big function actuaries provide is making\nreserves to insure that insurance companies keep enough\nmoney on their balance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

pricing risk assessment and\nmarketing of the products. Their job involves making\nestimates of ultimate out-come of insurable events. In the\nbusiness of insurance the product cost is an abstraction,\ndepending on the timing issues, variability issues and risk\nparameters. One big function actuaries provide is making\nreserves to insure that insurance companies keep enough\nmoney on their balance

ASST CIT 24(1), MUMBAI vs. DIPAK KANAYALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit-24(1), फनाभ/ Shri Dipak Kanayalal Shah, 31-B, 1St Floor, Laxmi Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Azad Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 012. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aveps4654B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.12/M/2017 (Ay 2010-11) Shri Dipak Kanayalal Shah, फनाभ/ Acit-24(1), 31-B, 1St Floor, Laxmi Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Azad Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 012. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aveps4654B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora / Mr. Hemen Chandariya प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Ms. Beena Santosh, Dr

section 2(29)(b) r.w.s 2(29)(a) and 2(42)(a) (b) of the Act. The period of holding constitutes the determining factor conclusively so far as the said definitions relating to the short term and long term capital loss and the short term and long term capital gains. We have perused the said written submissions of the assessee

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

transfer of documents) to the Assessing Officer of the other person. It was argued by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and other person is one and same, then, why the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of other person should not be treated as a satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

transfer of documents) to the Assessing Officer of the other person. It was argued by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and other person is one and same, then, why the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of other person should not be treated as a satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

transfer of documents) to the Assessing Officer of the other person. It was argued by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and other person is one and same, then, why the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of other person should not be treated as a satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer