UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

transferring of unlisted shares at\na price different from the fair market value (i.e. no or inadequate\nconsideration) of the shares and also included within its ambit\ntransactions undertaken in shares of the company (not being a\ncompany in which public are substantially interested) either for\ninadequate consideration or without consideration, where\nrecipient is a firm or a company

INDER JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer would defeat both the spirit and later on that covenant. This legislative intent is also clear from the Finance Minister's Speech (supra) that long term capital gains exceeding to Rs.1,00,000/- shall be taxed at 10% without indexation but that all gains up to 31/01/2018 shall be grandfathered. Thus the intention was manifestly benevolent to mitigate hardship

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made on adhoc basis. The TPO has to apply one of the prescribed method as is notified during the relevant point of time. We see no plausible reason to sustain the addition, hence, the adjustment on account of purchase of property from Hispano is liable to be deleted. We hold and direct accordingly

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Transfer Pricing adjustment for adding the notional interest on receivables on account of issuance of Non-Convertible Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (for short “NCCRPS”). The relevant facts are, assessee filed its return of Income on 30.11.2016 declaring loss at ₹.6,85,08,728/- under regular provision of the Act and Book Loss of ₹.6,48,55,009/- under section 115JB

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

55,704 under section 234B of the\nAct.\n8. The learned Assessing Officer erroneously levied interest of INR\n4,67,63,652 in the computation of income attached to the assessment.\n9. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO\nand / or DRP has erred in initiating penalty under Section 270A

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

2. Transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations, 2.1 The Id. CTT (A) erred in law, on facts and in circumstances of the case in not deleting the transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the ld. AO as being bad in law, illegal and unsustainable on the basis of the following grounds, taken singly or cumulatively: 2.1.1 a) The Id. DCIT has failed to comply

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

prices that are higher than what was agreed with the purchasers. Out of the receipts from the new buyers, the appellant refunded to the purchasers the amount paid by them and a portion of the excess amount received. builder. Such a relationship does not spell out a debtor-creditor relationship nor is the payment made by the appellant

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

Section 115JB of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the Transfer Pricing Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Addition of INR.10,45,07,474/- made

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

Section 115JB of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the Transfer Pricing Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Addition of INR.10,45,07,474/- made

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77,55

COLGATE -PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77,55

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77,55

DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77,55

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

Section following DRP QNPL 56(2)(viia) of the Act directions Shares from AE: 3 On the TPO proposed DRP confirmed the Assessing Officer issue of upward adjustment action of the TPO made the addition sale of of INR by computing Shares of 71,64,92,650/- capital after taking QNPL to impacting the sale into account SIPL consideration transfer

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

prices that\nare higher than what was agreed with the purchasers. Out of the\nreceipts from the new buyers, the appellant refunded to the purchasers\nthe amount paid by them and a portion of the excess amount received.\n10\nITA Nos.261 & 1022/Mum/2025\nSamir Narain Bhojwani\nThe amount thus refunded to the purchasers represents the\nconsideration the purchasers paid towards

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

transfer pricing matters made by the learned AO/TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble DRP in respect of data processing and software services be deleted. Ground 2 - Disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses amounting to Rs. 29,47,184 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO while giving effect to the directions

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for\nother monetary consideration. Therefore, for the purpose of\napplicability of section 54, registration of document is not\nimperative.\n9. The appellant submits that for the purpose of section 54 of the\nAct what has to be seen is whether the appellant has invested the\ncapital gains toward

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice