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

80G out of CSR expenses are in accordance with the decisions of various benches of Tribunal. Thus, the view taken by assessing officer cannot be said to be erroneous. Thus, the pre-requisite twin conditions for exercising jurisdiction under section 263 has not meet out in the present case hence we quash / set aside the order of Pr. CIT dated

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

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 was taxed in the hands of the employees as a perquisite under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee duly deducted tax at source under section 192 of the Act on the value of such perquisite. 18. During the relevant previous year, the assessee debited

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

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 (‘TPO’) has passed the order on 27 January 2022 after due consideration of the limitation period of 31 March 2022 as prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153 of the Act. Without prejudice to the above Grounds, Grounds of appeal in respect of the additions made by the learned AO are as under: Allowability of deduction 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)

VI A, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income". If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

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)

VI A, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income". If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

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)

VI A, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income". If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

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)

VI A, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income". If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

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

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

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

vi) an entity making fresh application for approval under clause (23C) of section 10, for registration under section 12AA, for approval under section 80G shall be provisionally approved or registered for three years on the basis of application without detailed enquiry even in the cases where activities of the entity are yet to begin and then it has to apply

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

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

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as\nit is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the\nPrincipal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner,—\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which\nshould have been made

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

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

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far\nas it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the\nPrincipal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner,—\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which\nshould have been made

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:

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 authorities. 15.2 The Finance Act has, therefore, amended the relevant provisions

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

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 under section 80G of the Act\neven if the expenditure was disallowed under section 37(1) by virtue of\nExplanation 2 of Section 37 of the Act as the deduction u/s 80G