RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

price at which the machinery was distributed by the assessee-firm to its partners as deemed gift and subjected the same to gift-tax. The issue was whether distribution of machinery was a transfer in the nature of sale, for a consideration. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court considered the expression of "transfer" under section 2(xxiv

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

price at which the machinery was distributed by the assessee-firm to its partners as deemed gift and subjected the same to gift-tax. The issue was whether distribution of machinery was a transfer in the nature of sale, for a consideration. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court considered the expression of "transfer" under section 2(xxiv

A.W. FABER CASTELL (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

801 Kamla Executive Park, Off M.V. Mumbai Pin: 40005 RD J.B. Nagar Andheri (E) Vs. Mumbai Pin: 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No AACCA3117H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant by : Mr. M.P. Lohia Mr. Pranay Gandhi Respondent by : Mrs. Malathi Sridharan CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / : 24/03/2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/04/2017 Date of Order आदेश

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer\npricing adjustment in respect of the international transaction of the purchase\nof finished goods.\n64. Insofar as this ground is concerned, the assessee's arguments are two-\nfold. Firstly, the learned AR prayed for a direction to the TPO/AO to comply\nwith the learned DRP's directions, whereby partial relief was granted to the\nassessee and two companies

THERMO FISHER SCIENFTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer\npricing adjustment in respect of the international transaction of the purchase\nof finished goods.\n64. Insofar as this ground is concerned, the assessee's arguments are two-\nfold. Firstly, the learned AR prayed for a direction to the TPO/AO to comply\nwith the learned DRP's directions, whereby partial relief was granted to the\nassessee and two companies

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer\npricing adjustment in respect of the international transaction of the purchase\nof finished goods.\n64. Insofar as this ground is concerned, the assessee's arguments are two-\nfold. Firstly, the learned AR prayed for a direction to the TPO/AO to comply\nwith the learned DRP's directions, whereby partial relief was granted to the\nassessee and two companies

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

transferred to the Appellant\n• Manufacturing and supply contracts are not an intangible asset as per\nAccounting Standard (AS)-26 issued by the Institute of Chartered\nAccountants of India\n2.4 Without prejudice to para 2.1 and 2.3 above, the learned DCIT and Hon'ble\nDRP erred in not considering the value of manufacturing contracts as Goodwill\nacquired from GSK, which

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

section 80IB, the profit and loss for 4 units for the year as well as profits eligible for deduction as per the assessee and as per the revenue is as under: Particular Multipurpose Thiamethoxam Topik Profenofos Total Unit Unit Unit Profit/loss for the year

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

section 80IB, the profit and loss for 4 units for the year as well as profits eligible for deduction as per the assessee and as per the revenue is as under: Particular Multipurpose Thiamethoxam Topik Profenofos Total Unit Unit Unit Profit/loss for the year

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SYNGENTA INDIA LTD, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

section 80IB, the profit and loss for 4 units for the year as well as profits eligible for deduction as per the assessee and as per the revenue is as under: Particular Multipurpose Thiamethoxam Topik Profenofos Total Unit Unit Unit Profit/loss for the year

ABU-DHABI COMMERICAL BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 6852/Mum./2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. 75B, Rehmat Manzil …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Veer Nariman Road Appellant Mumbai 400 020 Pan – Aaaca4216B V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / (International Taxation), Circle–1(1) 117, Scindia House, Ballard Pier Respondent Mumbai 400 038 ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Ms. Chandani Shah रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 28.09.2016 Date Of Order – 21.10.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

Transfer Pricing Officer had accepted the arm's length price reported by the assessee including the H.O. expenditure. Therefore, the allegation that assessee has failed to substantiate the arm's length price of the H.O. expenses with relevant data is without any basis. On the contrary, the conclusion drawn by learned Commissioner (Appeals) that assessee has failed to establish

DY CIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NOVATEUR ELECTRICALS AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 43(6)(c), it relates to acquisition of a subsidiary company by its holding company or vice versa and for the transaction of amalgamation. It does not deal with transaction of slump sale. Thus, the provisions referred by the authorities below are misplaced for the impugned transaction of slump sale undertaken by the assessee which gave rise

NOVATEUR ELECTRICAL AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 43(6)(c), it relates to acquisition of a subsidiary company by its holding company or vice versa and for the transaction of amalgamation. It does not deal with transaction of slump sale. Thus, the provisions referred by the authorities below are misplaced for the impugned transaction of slump sale undertaken by the assessee which gave rise

ACIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI vs. GITANJALI EXPORTS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai. [PAN: AABCG 2804 N] Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax ….......…..…………….…Respondent Range - 5 (1), Mumbai. Appearances by: Aarti Vissanji for the assessee N.K. Chand for Assessing Officer Date of concluding the hearing : January 14th, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : March 31st, 2016 ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, AM: 1. These cross appeals

GITANJALI EXPORTS CORPON. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai. [PAN: AABCG 2804 N] Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax ….......…..…………….…Respondent Range - 5 (1), Mumbai. Appearances by: Aarti Vissanji for the assessee N.K. Chand for Assessing Officer Date of concluding the hearing : January 14th, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : March 31st, 2016 ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, AM: 1. These cross appeals

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodacit (Ltu)-2 M/S. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. World Trade Centre Glenmark Huse, Hdo Corporate Centre-1, 29Th Flor Vs. Bldg., Wing A, B.D. Sawant Marg Cuff Parade Chakala, Opp. Western Express Mumbai 400005 High Way, Andheri (E), Mumbai Pan – Aaacg2207L Appellant Respondent

prices are lower and has compared the rate adopted for Mauritius and West Indies to that of Russia. Here, the plea of the assessee is cogent that these are crucial difference of the geography as well as quantity involved. The quantity exported to Russia is huge (approximately 80 times) as compared to that exported to Mauritius and West Indies. When

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

801/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 28/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,54,41,530/- declaring same book profit after setting off of brought forward losses of Rs.44,18,221/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section 143(3) was passed by assessing officer on 30. 03. 2013. The assessing

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Price.\n6.3.7 With reference to above, judicial precedents rendered by various\nTribunals while examining 'market price' in the context of power supplied\nby power plants to manufacturing units has held that the rate at which\nthe State Electricity Board supplies power to its consumers is to be\nconsidered to be the market value:\n• M/s Hero Motocorp Limited