ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

price of shares and did not result in any real outflow or accrued liability. The failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the factual and legal sustainability of the claim under section 37(1) was treated as a serious lapse. (4) In so far as the deduction under section 80G amounting to ₹7,22,00,000/- was concerned, the learned

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

5 & 9 of the income- tax Act, 1961, thus establishing that the liability to deduct tax at source under section 195 arase which the assessee failed to discharge?" 13. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) erred in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 10AA in respect of interest

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITEIS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

transfer pricing adjustment. Accordingly, in view of the above,\ngrounds no.1 and 2 raised in assessee's appeal are dismissed as withdrawn.\n4.\nThe issue arising in ground no.3, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains\nto the disallowance made on account of Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”)\nexpenses.\n5.\nThe brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

iii) First American (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1762/Bang/2019) Allegis Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1693 /Bang/ 2019) Ld. Counsel further submitted that if the intention was to deny deduction of CSR expenses under section 80G, appropriate amendments on lines of section 37(1) should also have been made The Ruby Mills Limited under section 80G

FIRMENICH AROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer has compared the price charged to non-AEs located in India with\nthe price charged to AEs in foreign countries. Therefore, the AEs and non-\nAEs being situated in different geographical locations, there may be\nvarious factors/reasons which could have influenced the price charged\nby the assessee to the AEs and non-AEs. Hence, the price charged

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act ?” 22. While deciding the same in aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: ― “If the statute mandates that income prepared in accordance with the Companies Act shall be deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then it should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act ?” 22. While deciding the same in aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: ― “If the statute mandates that income prepared in accordance with the Companies Act shall be deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then it should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act ?” 22. While deciding the same in aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: ― “If the statute mandates that income prepared in accordance with the Companies Act shall be deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then it should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act ?” 22. While deciding the same in aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: ― “If the statute mandates that income prepared in accordance with the Companies Act shall be deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then it should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA of the Act on 16.07.202, who passed an order dated 27.01.2022 without proposing any adjustment to the arm’s length price. 3. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2022. During following additions and disallowances: i. Disallowance of deduction under section 80G

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2026-27

iii) of the Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. This will be the harmonious interpretation. 11. If we agree with the interpretation of the ld.CIT(E), then say a trust which was formed in the year 2000, performed charitable activities since 2000, but did not apply for registration u/s.80G, the said trust will never be able to apply

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ABM KNOWLEDGEWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh\norder under the said section.\n***\nExplanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared\nthat an order passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous

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

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

section 80HHC /80HHE etc. there is\nspecific provision to exclude from the \"Profit of the Business\", the other\nincome such as commission, brokerage, interest, rent etc. However,\nthere is no specific exclusion while computing deduction under section\n10A/10AA/10B of the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions,\nit is clear that, what is exempted is not merely the profits

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO') has\npassed the order on 27 January 2022 after due consideration of\nthe limitation period of 31 March 2022 as prescribed under\nsection 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153 of the Act.\nWithout prejudice to the above Grounds, Grounds of appeal in\nrespect of the additions made by the learned AO are as under:\nAllowability of deduction under

FIRMENICH AROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer has compared the price charged to non-AEs located in India with\nthe price charged to AEs in foreign countries. Therefore, the AEs and non-\nAEs being situated in different geographical locations, there may be\nvarious factors/reasons which could have influenced the price charged\nby the assessee to the AEs and non-AEs. Hence, the price charged

B. ARUNKUMAR CAPITAL & CREDIT SERVICES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a\nfresh order under the said section.\n***\nExplanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared\nthat an order passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous