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)

iv) the revision of deduction under section 80G amounting to ₹7,22,00,000/- in respect of donations forming part of Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) expenditure; (v) the revision pertaining to deduction allowed for penalties paid to the stock exchange amounting to ₹64,64,367/-; and (vi) the revision relating to deduction of interest expenditure amounting

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

iv) 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 under section 80G of the Act. In the absence of any such amendment, CSR expenses should

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

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 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)

80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 f) Disallowance of foreign tax credit u/s 90(1)(a)(ii) relating to income eligible for deduction

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)

80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 f) Disallowance of foreign tax credit u/s 90(1)(a)(ii) relating to income eligible for deduction

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)

80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 f) Disallowance of foreign tax credit u/s 90(1)(a)(ii) relating to income eligible for deduction

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)

80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 f) Disallowance of foreign tax credit u/s 90(1)(a)(ii) relating to income eligible for deduction

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

SOU DWARKABAI SHASTRI PATWARDHAN TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2025-26

iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) ……. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption),Pune in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced in 18/01/2014, hence the assessee was liable to make application for Approval u/s 80G of the Act to file

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

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

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

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

iv) FNF India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [133 taxmann.com 251 (Bang.)]\n(υ) JMS Mining (P) Ltd. v. Pr.CIT [130 taxтапп.com 118 (Kol.)]”\n3.2 The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of\ncoordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Naik Sea Foods Pvt.\nLtd. Vs. PCIT in ITA no. 490/Mum/2021 dated 26/11/2021 and\ndecision of Inter Gold

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

iv) disposal of appeals, (v) representing Departmental cases in the Appellate Tribunal, (vi) handling search and seizure matters, etc. The above shows that some of the Deputy Commissioners and Deputy Directors have been assigned duties of higher responsibility. Therefore, there is need to recognize 13 the aforesaid distinction in responsibility by making an appropriate change in the designation of such

PASHUPATI CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

IV\nand the only Explanation 2 to section 37 prohibits the allowance of CSR\nexpenditure as business expenditure. This scope of the restriction imposed\nin section 37 does not extend to Chapter VI-A of the Act which is\nindependent of section 37 of the Act. It is further claimed by the assessee\nthat CSR expenditure is eligible for deduction