DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) noted that the assessee had not charged any commission for extending such guarantees. He was of the opinion that the transaction was an international transaction that required benchmarking, and accordingly determined the arm’s length commission at 1.5%. assessee’s income for the respective years. 6. In the first appellate stage, the learned CIT(A) examined

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) noted that the assessee had not charged any commission for extending such guarantees. He was of the opinion that the transaction was an international transaction that required benchmarking, and accordingly determined the arm’s length commission at 1.5%. assessee’s income for the respective years. 6. In the first appellate stage, the learned CIT(A) examined

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) noted that the assessee had not charged any commission for extending such guarantees. He was of the opinion that the transaction was an international transaction that required benchmarking, and accordingly determined the arm’s length commission at 1.5%. assessee’s income for the respective years. 6. In the first appellate stage, the learned CIT(A) examined

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

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

price of the property matches. The page no. 21 is for purchase of the property and page no. 22 is for the sale of the property. Further, sale consideration offered by the assessee for long term capital gain of ₹28,79,928/- are offered for taxation which is exactly to the sum of ₹28,80,000/- mentioned at page

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

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

price of the property matches. The page no. 21 is for purchase of the property and page no. 22 is for the sale of the property. Further, sale consideration offered by the assessee for long term capital gain of ₹28,79,928/- are offered for taxation which is exactly to the sum of ₹28,80,000/- mentioned at page

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

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

price of the property matches. The page no. 21 is for purchase of the property and page no. 22 is for the sale of the property. Further, sale consideration offered by the assessee for long term capital gain of ₹28,79,928/- are offered for taxation which is exactly to the sum of ₹28,80,000/- mentioned at page

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

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

price of the property matches. The page no. 21 is for purchase of the property and page no. 22 is for the sale of the property. Further, sale consideration offered by the assessee for long term capital gain of ₹28,79,928/- are offered for taxation which is exactly to the sum of ₹28,80,000/- mentioned at page

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, , MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

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

price of the property matches. The page no. 21 is for purchase of the property and page no. 22 is for the sale of the property. Further, sale consideration offered by the assessee for long term capital gain of ₹28,79,928/- are offered for taxation which is exactly to the sum of ₹28,80,000/- mentioned at page

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

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

price of the property matches. The page no. 21 is for purchase of the property and page no. 22 is for the sale of the property. Further, sale consideration offered by the assessee for long term capital gain of ₹28,79,928/- are offered for taxation which is exactly to the sum of ₹28,80,000/- mentioned at page

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

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

price of the property matches. The page no. 21 is for purchase of the property and page no. 22 is for the sale of the property. Further, sale consideration offered by the assessee for long term capital gain of ₹28,79,928/- are offered for taxation which is exactly to the sum of ₹28,80,000/- mentioned at page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) noted that the\nassessee had not charged any commission for extending such\nguarantees. He was of the opinion that the transaction was an\ninternational transaction that required benchmarking, and\naccordingly determined the arm's length commission at 1.5%.\nBased on such adjustment, additions were made to the\nassessee's income for the respective assessment years

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) noted that the\nassessee had not charged any commission for extending such\nguarantees. He was of the opinion that the transaction was an\ninternational transaction that required benchmarking, and\naccordingly determined the arm's length commission at 1.5%.\n\n4\nITA No. 871/Mum/2025 and others\nViraj Profiles Private Limited\n\nBased on such adjustment, additions were

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TANISHQ BUILDERS, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

price, I decided to prepare these bogus charts/chits to demonstrate that the sale of flats are at Rs.27,500/- per sq ft. I confirm that except five flats sold through me as above, I am not involved in sale of any other flats. Various facts were repeatedly put and explained to the Authorized Officers but applying pressure tactics, they forced

TANISHQ BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CC 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

price, I decided to prepare these bogus charts/chits to demonstrate that the sale of flats are at Rs.27,500/- per sq ft. I confirm that except five flats sold through me as above, I am not involved in sale of any other flats. Various facts were repeatedly put and explained to the Authorized Officers but applying pressure tactics, they forced

BHISHMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹42,79,483/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law." 3. Brief facts of the case show that :- i. Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing of coca, chocolates and super confectioneries. ii. Search under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹42,79,483/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law." 3. Brief facts of the case show that :- i. Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing of coca, chocolates and super confectioneries. ii. Search under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹42,79,483/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law." 3. Brief facts of the case show that :- i. Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing of coca, chocolates and super confectioneries. ii. Search under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹42,79,483/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law." 3. Brief facts of the case show that :- i. Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing of coca, chocolates and super confectioneries. ii. Search under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹42,79,483/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law." 3. Brief facts of the case show that :- i. Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing of coca, chocolates and super confectioneries. ii. Search under