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

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

56(2) (vii), any\nsum of money or any property in kind which is received without\nconsideration or for inadequate consideration (in excess of the\nprescribed limit of Rs. 50,000/-) by an individual or an HUF is\nchargeable to income tax in the hands of recipient under the head\n'income from other sources'. However, receipts from relatives

DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RANKIN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

section 56(2)(vii)(c), though per sé applicable to the transaction, i.e., of this genre, getting attracted in such a case. ...” [Emphasis supplied] f) In the decision, the Hon'ble ITAT then held at para 4.5 that “...... A transaction could be either with or without consideration. Consideration signifies a price, so that it is a case of transfer

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

56(vii) etc. It was also held that as per the provisions of law prevailing during the year under consideration, the gift received by one corporate body from another corporate bodies do not come under the ambit of income as contemplated under section 2(24) or any other provisions of the Act. While referring and following the decision

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

56(vii) etc. It was also held that as per the provisions of law prevailing during the year under consideration, the gift received by one corporate body from another corporate bodies do not come under the ambit of income as contemplated under section 2(24) or any other provisions of the Act. While referring and following the decision

JOSEPH MUDALIAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

price was lower. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs. 150000/ being development charges paid to builders for 4 flats & bank interest of Rs.173308/- paid during construction period while calculating long term capital gain, ignoring the fact that these cost were capitalized in the books, thereby increasing the long term capital gain by Rs.569723/-. 3. The Learned

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

prices much below their fair market value or without any consideration. It is pertinent to mention that after amendment to section 56(2)(viia), only the transfer of shares of unlisted company without consideration or for inadequate consideration is deemed to be income chargeable to tax. It is not in dispute that the assessee has received gift of shares

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

vii) was inserted w.e.f. 1 October 2009 to tax the receipt of money or any property whose value exceeds Rs. 50,000 without consideration or for inadequate consideration by any individual or HUF subject to certain exclusions. sub section 2 clause (viia) was inserted w.e.f. 1 June 2010 to tax the receipt of shares of a closely held company whose

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

56,74,029. 6. The Transfer Pricing Officer after analysing the activity of the assessee and the nature of business in the aforesaid three categories was of the view that the functions are basically in the nature of merchant banking service for the Associate Enterprise (A.E). Though, the assessee tried to impress upon the Transfer Pricing Officer that the aforesaid

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

vii) Willis Processing Services India Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.2152/ Mum./2014; viii) Ventura India v/s ACIT, ITA no.1788/Pn./2014; 31. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the DRP and the Transfer Pricing Officer. 32. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. A reference to the Profit & Loss account of the company at Page

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

price\npaid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.\nSale how made—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property\nof the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion\nor other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the\ncase of tangible immoveable property of a value

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

price only for share capital of holding company. Therefore, this is a fit case where in substance over form is to be looked which clearly proves that the entire transaction is carried out to evade tax. Further, for the purpose of computation of tax liability section 56(2)(vii) (c) is invoked. Accordingly, the differential amount between total

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

price only for share capital of holding company. Therefore, this is a fit case where in substance over form is to be looked which clearly proves that the entire transaction is carried out to evade tax. Further, for the purpose of computation of tax liability section 56(2)(vii) (c) is invoked. Accordingly, the differential amount between total

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

vii) Thereafter, Thereafter, the assessee i.e. owner of the land i.e. owner of the land, entered into an agreement With M/s V into an agreement With M/s Vidhi Enterprises i.e. idhi Enterprises i.e. Developer, for development of the plot wherein they , for development of the plot wherein they , for development of the plot wherein they agreed to share the constructed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

vii) Thereafter, Thereafter, the assessee i.e. owner of the land i.e. owner of the land, entered into an agreement With M/s V into an agreement With M/s Vidhi Enterprises i.e. idhi Enterprises i.e. Developer, for development of the plot wherein they , for development of the plot wherein they , for development of the plot wherein they agreed to share the constructed

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

vii) Thereafter, Thereafter, the assessee i.e. owner of the land i.e. owner of the land, entered into an agreement With M/s V into an agreement With M/s Vidhi Enterprises i.e. idhi Enterprises i.e. Developer, for development of the plot wherein they , for development of the plot wherein they , for development of the plot wherein they agreed to share the constructed

DCIT 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KILITCH HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

vii)(b) of the Act and Rule 11UA which read as under :- Section 56(2) provides for addition in certain cases. Sub-section (viib) thereof reads as under : (viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

56. In its transfer pricing analysis, the assessee benchmarked the international transaction with the AE by applying TNMM as the most appropriate method. The assessee selected eleven comparables with arithmetic mean of 12.83% as against the margin shown by it at13.33%. The Transfer Pricing Officer rejected some of the comparables selected by the assessee and introduced some fresh comparables. Finally

DY CIT. CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S TRAVECOM GLOBAL P. LTD., BHAYANDER

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

vii) and that the Provisions ofs. 56(2) were to strike at the generation and use of unaccounted money and '' was never intended the honest and bona fide transactions where consideration for transfer was correctly disclosed by the assessee, Note on non-applicability of Explanation to Section 56(2) (viib) Sub-cl. (ii) of Explanation to Section 5 6 (2

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI RAJEEV R. TULSHYAN, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5748/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-13(1)(3) Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan 2Nd Floor, Room No.225 बिाम 4101, 4Th Floor, C-Wing Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Lodha Bellissimo, J.B. Boricha Marg / Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 011 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Abopt-2790-D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.118/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5748/Mum/2017) (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan Income Tax Officer-13(1)(3) 4101, 4Th Floor, C-Wing 2Nd Floor, Room No.225 बिाम/ Lodha Bellissimo, J.B. Boricha Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 011 Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Abopt-2790-D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta- Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Batham-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

transfer of shares of a company to a firm or a company, instead of an individual or an HUF, without consideration or at a price lower than the fair market value does not attract the anti-abuse provision. Further, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii