BHARATKUMAR HARIDAS MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

transfer by way of deed of conveyance duly y way of deed of conveyance duly stamped and registered as required by law had not occurred. stamped and registered as required by law had not occurred. stamped and registered as required by law had not occurred. Further, it is held that 1st and 2nd proviso to section 56(2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROMELL HOUSING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the\nRevenue's Appeal is dismissed

56(2)(x) of the Act for\ndetermination of income of the assessee.\n10. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Raj Singh (D)\nTh.Lrs. vs. Gejo (D) Th.Lrs.&Ors.,in Civil Appeal No.9098 of 2013, vide\njudgment dated 02.01.2024, while examining the provisions of section 47 of\nthe Registration Act, 1908, which provides that a registered

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

2 export general Life 6,56,15,453 sales science distributors GmbH 3 export Jinan 37,73,085 sales pharmaceutical company Ltd 4 import Jinan 42,08,526 purchases pharmaceutical company Ltd 011. The learned CIT noted that the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

2 export general Life 6,56,15,453 sales science distributors GmbH 3 export Jinan 37,73,085 sales pharmaceutical company Ltd 4 import Jinan 42,08,526 purchases pharmaceutical company Ltd 011. The learned CIT noted that the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

2 export general Life 6,56,15,453 sales science distributors GmbH 3 export Jinan 37,73,085 sales pharmaceutical company Ltd 4 import Jinan 42,08,526 purchases pharmaceutical company Ltd 011. The learned CIT noted that the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

2 export general Life 6,56,15,453 sales science distributors GmbH 3 export Jinan 37,73,085 sales pharmaceutical company Ltd 4 import Jinan 42,08,526 purchases pharmaceutical company Ltd 011. The learned CIT noted that the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing

M/S UNIHEALTH CONSULTANCY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8 (3) (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Unihealth Consultancy Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(3)(1), H-13 & H-14 Everest, 9Th Floor, Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Tardeo Road, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcu 1551 C Appellant Respondent

price at Rs.799.90 and Rs.202.19 per share Rs.799.90 and Rs.202.19 per share respectively from two different respectively from two different valuers applying discount applying discounting cash flow (DCF) method. In view of the method. In view of the vast difference in the valuation of the equity and preference share vast difference in the valuation of the equity and preference share

MR. BIPINCHANDRA SHANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23 (1) (6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, in the present case it needs to be examined whether, pursuant to the Deed for Conversion dated 05/12/2019 entered into between the landlord, i.e. Tarabhai Bhatia Family Trust, and the assessee as a tenant, the assessee received an immovable property or merely a right (i.e. the ownership right) in the immovable property

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

56(1) of the I.T. Act, being the market value of shares of Dish TV India Ltd., which was shown at Nil value by adopting a colourable device to evade taxes?. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, whether the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 amounting

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

56(1) of the I.T. Act, being the market value of shares of Dish TV India Ltd., which was shown at Nil value by adopting a colourable device to evade taxes?. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, whether the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 amounting

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer was also found that there is also an international transaction of reimbursement and recovery of expense amounting to ₹2,75,66,373/-. The Associated Enterprises incurred certain expenses on behalf of assessee related to the hotel, Visa and other cost. These were reimbursed by the assessee to the Associated Enterprises on cost to cost basis. similarly; there

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer was also found that there is also an international transaction of reimbursement and recovery of expense amounting to ₹2,75,66,373/-. The Associated Enterprises incurred certain expenses on behalf of assessee related to the hotel, Visa and other cost. These were reimbursed by the assessee to the Associated Enterprises on cost to cost basis. similarly; there

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer was also found that there is also an international transaction of reimbursement and recovery of expense amounting to ₹2,75,66,373/-. The Associated Enterprises incurred certain expenses on behalf of assessee related to the hotel, Visa and other cost. These were reimbursed by the assessee to the Associated Enterprises on cost to cost basis. similarly; there

BENUDHAR GOKULANAND BISWAL,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMET CENTRE, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebenudhar Gokulanand Vs. National E Assessment Biswal, Centre, H 302, Room.No 401,2 Nd Shanti Complex, Floor, E Ramp, Saki Vihar Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Powai, Stadium, Mumbai – 400072, New Delhi-110003. Pan/Gir No. : Adopb9106B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Tanmay Phadke.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per The Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)]Despite Concluding That The Agreement For Sale Was Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. Entered Into On 13.07.2009 (I.E. Prior To 01.04.2017), Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Which Was Inserted Vide Finance Act, 2017 & Made Expressly Applicable From 01.04.2017 Are Not Applicable To The Facts Under Consideration. The Addition Of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% Of Rs. 19,76,686/-) As Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Is Bad In Law & May Be Deleted.

price of Rs.32,97,500/- and got registered in the year 2017 at market value of Rs. 52,74,186/- and the stamp valuation and registration fee of Rs. Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. 2,94,000/- was paid. Further the AO has observed that the assessee has not furnished bank account details including the foreign bank account highlighting the payments

ELVIS ZEPHERIN CRASTO ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TAX WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleelvis Zepherin Crasto V. Income Tax Officer Gorai Village, Jui Pada International Taxation Gorai Essel World Road Ward – 2(1)(1) Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Asgpc6280N (Appellant) (Respondent)

prices and the Id. AO cannot tax the assessee by taking shelter of Section 50CA and Section 56(2) of the IT Act. The assessee was not having such a huge cash Rs.2,07,56,500 for investing in the said Land and question of evading tax does not arise. The assessee doing his job at Dubai

APARNA SANDEEP KULKARANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAX WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

transfer the payment made for the earlier flat towards the new flat and since the booking in the new flat was made as per the 3 terms and conditions of the earlier agreed terms, the agreement was made at a consideration of Rs. 1,07,00,000/- as agreed between the parties. However, the submissions so made by the assessee

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

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

2,115.54 per share of QNPL less than the fair market value and therefore, proposed transfer pricing adjustment of INR 83,60,61,408/-. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/06/2021, the Assessing Officer proposed an addition of INR 83,60,61,408/- under Section 56

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMAGRA WEALTHMAX PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

price paid by assessee and FMV of shares as income of assessee under section 56(2)(viia) of The Act. We find that order of Vertex Projects LLp deals with the addition made u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act. In this regard, it is submitted that section 56(2)(viia) is applicable from 01.06.2010 to 31.03.2017. 023. Provision