DCIT CC 7(4), MUMBAI vs. PODDAR RENAISSANCE REALITY PVT LTD (NOW KNOWN AS IMPERIAL RENAISSAICE RENIASANCE REALITY PVT. LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit, Cc-7(4), Mumbai V/S. Poddar Renaissance Reality Room No. 659, Aaykar बनाम Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Bhavan, M.K. Road, Imperial Renaissance Mumbai-400020 Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 501/601, Aqua Marine, Carter Road, Mumbai-400050030 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcp2657R Appellant/अपीलाथ" .. Respondent/"ितवादी

unexplained investment and undisclosed income on substantive basis. The on substantive basis. The same addition has been made made on protective basis in the hand s of the assessee in the hand s of the assessee as those flats were purchased in the name of the assessee entity. as those flats were purchased in the name of the assessee entity

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

transfer pricing adjustment made u/s 92C of the Act, towards interest on loan to subsidiaries. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly deleted penalty levied by the A.O, and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the Revenue. 11. In the result, the appeal filed

GROWMORE RESEARCH AND ASSETS MANAGEMENT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (ERSTWHILE DCIT-31, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

price as on 31-03-1992. Hence, we are of the view that there may be error in mentioning the name of the company. Since no detail was produced by the revenue also, we deem it proper to restore this addition to the file of the AO with the direction to furnish the material relating to the addition

LANXES INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

price as on 31-03-1992. Hence, we are of the view that there may be error in mentioning the name of the company. Since no detail was produced by the revenue also, we deem it proper to restore this addition to the file of the AO with the direction to furnish the material relating to the addition

KANTAR ANALYTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIREFLY MARKET RESERCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF ANALYTICS QUOTIENT SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

investment or to facilitate compliance with\nreporting, legal, or regulatory requirements of the ultimate parent or;\nb) May be duplicative in nature or otherwise do not constitute a benefit\n7.4\nAllocation methodology\nThe service fee is arrived at based on AQ India's share of total net sales achieved relative to\nworldwide net sales in that calendar year.\nMark

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

price and the book value of share, this ground is similar to Ground No. 4 of grounds of appeal raised by the revenue for the A.Y. 2006-07 and the decision taken therein shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08. We order accordingly. 42. With regard to Ground No. 8 which is in respect

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

price and the book value of share, this ground is similar to Ground No. 4 of grounds of appeal raised by the revenue for the A.Y. 2006-07 and the decision taken therein shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08. We order accordingly. 42. With regard to Ground No. 8 which is in respect

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

Transfer Pricing Adjustment under Rs.31,63,26,783/- Sec.92CA(4) 3. Addition of unexplained expenses Rs. 6,87,976/- 4. Restriction of the assessee‘s claim for Rs.251,92,58,451/- ITA Nos.1431 &1350/Mum/2014 & ITA Nos.1925 & 1852/Mum/2015 7 A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-10(3)/ACIT deduction under Sec. 80IC (as against

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

Transfer Pricing Adjustment under Rs.31,63,26,783/- Sec.92CA(4) 3. Addition of unexplained expenses Rs. 6,87,976/- 4. Restriction of the assessee‘s claim for Rs.251,92,58,451/- ITA Nos.1431 &1350/Mum/2014 & ITA Nos.1925 & 1852/Mum/2015 7 A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-10(3)/ACIT deduction under Sec. 80IC (as against

INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

unexplained investment amounting to Rs.50,00,45,000/-. The . The material facts qua the issue in dispute are facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee company purchased 20,000 equity share, which that the assessee company purchased 20,000 equity share that the assessee company purchased 20,000 equity share is 100% shareholding of M/s Somani

SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

unexplained investment amounting to Rs.50,00,45,000/-. The . The material facts qua the issue in dispute are facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee company purchased 20,000 equity share, which that the assessee company purchased 20,000 equity share that the assessee company purchased 20,000 equity share is 100% shareholding of M/s Somani

L & T TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blel & T Technology Services Limited V. Acit – Circle – 2(2)(1) L & T House, N.M. Marg Room No. 545, 5Th Floor Mumbai - 400001 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccl4310P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES 2. The Assessing Officer erred in adding the premia income on forward contracts to the total income of the Appellant without appreciating the fact that the premia income had already been offered to tax in the earlier years. 3. Without prejudice to Ground No.2, the Assessing Officer erred in adding an amount of Rs.49

M/S EVERFINE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

unexplained investment and invoked section 68 of the Act. 9. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of ₹.42,80,19,650/- u/s.68 of the Act by reiterating all the observations made by the Assessing Officer with respect to the modus operandi/ findings in the search. Further, she made reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

L,OREAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhl‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle-7(1)(2) A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Aayakar Bhavan, Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, M.K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Vs. Pan: Aaacl0738K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 .07.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

unexplained investment under section 69 of Rs. 8.27 crore was deleted. On receipt of direction of DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 14.10.2019 by making adding ITA No. 7204 Mum 2019-L‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. addition of AMP and disallowance of depriciation. Aggrieved by the various addition/disallowance, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this

ELVIS ZEPHERIN CRASTO ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TAX WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleelvis Zepherin Crasto V. Income Tax Officer Gorai Village, Jui Pada International Taxation Gorai Essel World Road Ward – 2(1)(1) Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Asgpc6280N (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained investment u/s 69 without any cogent evidence. 8. After considering the above submissions of the assessee, Ld. DRP briefly narrated the various arguments raised by the assessee vide letter dated 27.02.2021, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below: - “The Assessee had submitted following arguments vide his letter dated 27.02.2021. the same are narrated below: 1. The said

DIMENSION DATA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं. / It(Tp)A No.1155/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Dimension Data India Limited Addl. Cit Unit No.204-206, 2Nd Floor Range No.551, 5Th Floor बनाम/ Trade Centre Building Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Kamala Mills Compound Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. S.B. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-2145-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. Dr

Transfer Pricing Officer-1(10), Mumbai (TPO) in its order u/s 92CA (4). The directions of Ld. DRP have provided partial relief to the assessee against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4.2 The assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) which were subject matter of determination of Arm’s Length Price

PFS SHIPPING (I) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee [ITA No

unexplained cash credit on assumptions and surmises, without appreciating that- i) Out of the loan amount of Rs.53,19,90,430/-, Rs. 20.40 Crs. was directly received form OOSPL, Rs. 19.19 Crs. and Rs. 13.58 Crs. was received respectively from PRP International, and Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd., on behalf of OOSPL. ii) OOSPL is assessed to income tax with

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of the disinvestment/sale/transfer; or the sale proceeds received by the Mauritius company had ultimately been paid over by it to the Foreign Principal/ its 100% shareholder 10 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai either by way of Special Dividend or by way of repayment of loans received; or the real owner/beneficial owner of the shares