DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

transfer pricing officer. It is the duty of the assessee to benchmark the international transactions according to the provisions of section 92C (3) of the act. The primary onus lies on the assessee to show that its international transactions are at arm's-length. The learned TPO, may examine the same, after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee, decide

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

transfer pricing officer. It is the duty of the assessee to benchmark the international transactions according to the provisions of section 92C (3) of the act. The primary onus lies on the assessee to show that its international transactions are at arm's-length. The learned TPO, may examine the same, after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee, decide

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for assessment year 2003 – 04 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp6332M Assessee By : Shri. Kanchan Koushal, Shri. Yogesh Thar, Shri. Jishan Jain, Shri. Pratik Shah, Shri. Yogesh Malpani Revenue By : Shri. Rajesh Damor (Cit Dr)

transfer pricing adjustment and corporate tax issues. 06. Assessee aggrieved with the same preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Both the parties were aggrieved with the same. Assessee preferred the appeal in ITA No.4399/Mum/2009 and the learned Assessing Officer preferred the appeal in ITA no.4488/Mum/2009. Subsequently, the assessee’s appeal

DCIT - 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for assessment year 2003 – 04 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp6332M Assessee By : Shri. Kanchan Koushal, Shri. Yogesh Thar, Shri. Jishan Jain, Shri. Pratik Shah, Shri. Yogesh Malpani Revenue By : Shri. Rajesh Damor (Cit Dr)

transfer pricing adjustment and corporate tax issues. 06. Assessee aggrieved with the same preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Both the parties were aggrieved with the same. Assessee preferred the appeal in ITA No.4399/Mum/2009 and the learned Assessing Officer preferred the appeal in ITA no.4488/Mum/2009. Subsequently, the assessee’s appeal

SC ENVIRO AGRO INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Sc Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 3(3) 33Rd, 3 Rd Floor, Rm. No.609, Maker Chambers Vi, Vs. 6Th Floor, 220 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs6405F

46A which pertained to fresh search process conducted by appellant following the filters/ criterion adopted by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld.TPO), as the set of comparable companies selected by Ld.TPO did not include various companies which ought to have been selected by Ld.TPO. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) grossly erred, in facts and in law, in confirming the addition

DCIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

Price for the adjustment made to the international transaction of the\nAppellant.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, vary, omit, or substitute\nthe aforesaid grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds of appeal\nat any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n2.1. The revenue has raised the following grounds

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

Price for the adjustment made to the international transaction of the\nAppellant.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, vary, omit, or substitute\nthe aforesaid grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds of appeal\nat any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n2.1. The revenue has raised the following grounds

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TPG CAPITAL INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

transfer pricing documentation prepared by the Appellant required under the\nAct and the Rules, despite the same being functionally comparable to the\nfunctions of the Appellant herein.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) / AO /TPO erred in disregarding the ruling of the Hon'ble\nMumbai Tribunal in Appellant's own case [ITA No.7954/Mum/2014] for AY 2009-\n10 and [ITA No.5411/Mum/2016

TPG CAPITAL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3132/Mum/2019is allowedand appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 3283/Mum/2019 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeetpg Capital India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 1004, The Capital, Plot No.C-70, Income-Tax, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai Room O.475, 4Th Floor, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pan :Aabcn6660K Mumbai-400 020 Dcit-14(3)(1), Mumbai Vs Tpg Capital India Private Limited 1004, The Capital, Plot No.C-70, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan :Aabcn6660K

transfer pricing documentation prepared by the Appellant required under the Act and the Rules, despite the same being functionally comparable to the functions of the Appellant herein. 6. The CIT(A) / AO /TPO erred in disregarding the ruling of the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in Appellant’s own case *ITA No.7954/Mum/2014+ for AY 2009- 10 and [ITA No.5411/Mum/2016

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

46A of the MMRDA Act and that of section 154 of the MRTP Act are in coherence, emphasising on control by the State Government qua functioning of a SPA. 12.4. We have also taken note of the fact that assessee is required to handover the completed amenities to the concerned statutory authorities. It is also important to take note

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

46A of the MMRDA Act and that of section 154 of the MRTP Act are in coherence, emphasising on control by the State Government qua functioning of a SPA. 12.4. We have also taken note of the fact that assessee is required to handover the completed amenities to the concerned statutory authorities. It is also important to take note

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section (2), require the\nwork of developing and disposing of land in the area of a new town to be\ndone by any such corporation, company or subsidiary company\naforesaid, as an agent of the state government; and thereupon, such\ncorporation or company shall, in relation to such area, be declared by the\n\nstate government, by notification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section (3A) of section 113 of MRTP Act\nprovides:\n\n\"(3A). Having regard to the complexity and magnitude of the work\ninvolved in developing any area as a site for the new town, the time\nrequired for setting up new machinery for undertaking and completing\nsuch work of development, and the comparative speed with which such\nwork

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

46A of the Income Tax Rules and order deserves to be set aside and remanded back to the file of the A.O. 14. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in treating the service charges received in respect of Income from House Property as Income from Other Sources

HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

46A of the Income Tax Rules and order deserves to be set aside and remanded back to the file of the A.O. 14. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in treating the service charges received in respect of Income from House Property as Income from Other Sources

VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

transfer pricing proceedings being quashed VISPL was not an eligible assessee as per section 144C(15)(b) of the Act”, and thus disposed of the objections in view of lack of jurisdiction. The AO accordingly framed the impugned final assessment order dated 3 A.Y. 2009-10 Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. 05.12.2014 u/s 143(3)/144C

CLSA INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing angled that it acted as an independent enterprise functioning in an uncontrolled environment while agreeing to pay the referral fees 9 M/s. CLSA India Pvt. Ltd. to CLSA Hongkong for services which it had hitherto received free of charge. 9. The ld. CIT (A) has simply confirmed the action of the ld. TPO that assigning any reasons

SILGATE SOLUTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal." 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of international call centre. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2013-14 on 24.10.2013, declaring total income of Rs.92,36,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that there was change in the shareholding pattern of the assessee wherein the ass

transfer under clause (via) or clause (vic) or clause (vicb) or clause (vid) or clause (vii) of section 47. Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, "fair market value" of a property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to clause

LUPIN INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ZYMA LABORATORIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

transfer under clause (via) or clause (vic) or clause (vich) or clause (vid) or clause (vii) of section 47.\nExplanation.-For the purposes of this clause, "fair market value" of a property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to clause