THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

price at which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

DCIT,CIR-6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIAGEO INDIA PVT.LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

money or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, loss on of the associated enterprises. 34. He submitted that the AMP expenses therefore enhancing sale of alcoholic beverages products manufactured distributed by DIPL in the domestic market was in the business interest of the DIPL to the same. 35. Learned counsel of the assessee further submitted that

DIAGEO INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

money or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, loss on of the associated enterprises. 34. He submitted that the AMP expenses therefore enhancing sale of alcoholic beverages products manufactured distributed by DIPL in the domestic market was in the business interest of the DIPL to the same. 35. Learned counsel of the assessee further submitted that

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

money to its AE on account of business expediency. It is further submitted that admission of this appeal indicates that the question is an arguable point in law on which two views are possible and therefore it is not a case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On similar lines, the Delhi Tribunal in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DALICHAND KAPURCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito – 12(2)(1), Mumbai Dalichand Kapurchand Jewellers Private Limited Vs Shop No. 50/51, Gulab Baug, M.G. Road, Opp Railway Station, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan; Aaacd 8748 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer agent for RBI registered Money Exchanger. Appellant filed its return of income on 24.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 11,81,740/-. Thereafter, the case of the appellant selected under scrutiny and accordingly, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. In response to the same, the appellant filed return of income on 31.05.2021 declaring

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

unexplained expenditure. Facts leading to the controversy in hand lies in a narrow compass. As per the AIR information, it was gathered by the A.O that the assessee had made certain payments using credit cards, as under: Sr. No. Name and address Transaction amount Transaction party 1. George Joseph Rs. 2,88,727 Citi Bank No. 79/8C Sunny Brooks

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

unexplained expenditure. Facts leading to the controversy in hand lies in a narrow compass. As per the AIR information, it was gathered by the A.O that the assessee had made certain payments using credit cards, as under: Sr. No. Name and address Transaction amount Transaction party 1. George Joseph Rs. 2,88,727 Citi Bank No. 79/8C Sunny Brooks

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

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

DOW CHEMICAL INERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. AS SUCCESSOR OF ROHAM AND HAAS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Rohm & Haas India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax-11(1)(1) 1St Floor, Block B, Room No.204, Aayakar 02, Godrej Business District Bhavan, M.K. Road, Priojshanagar, Lbs Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Sa No.261/Mum/2019 M/S. Dow Chemical Vs. Income Tax Officer – International Pvt. Ltd., As 14(1)(1), Room No. 431, Successor Of Rohm & Haas Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 Godrej It Park – P2 1St Floor Block B, 02 Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshahnagar Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment together with additional grounds thereon are allowed for statistical purposes. CORPORATE TAX ISSUES:- & SA No.261/Mum/2019 7. The Ground No.8 raised by the assessee is with regard to action of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,24,008/- in respect of sundry creditors u/s.41(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings

ROHM AND HAAS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Rohm & Haas India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax-11(1)(1) 1St Floor, Block B, Room No.204, Aayakar 02, Godrej Business District Bhavan, M.K. Road, Priojshanagar, Lbs Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Sa No.261/Mum/2019 M/S. Dow Chemical Vs. Income Tax Officer – International Pvt. Ltd., As 14(1)(1), Room No. 431, Successor Of Rohm & Haas Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 Godrej It Park – P2 1St Floor Block B, 02 Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshahnagar Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment together with additional grounds thereon are allowed for statistical purposes. CORPORATE TAX ISSUES:- & SA No.261/Mum/2019 7. The Ground No.8 raised by the assessee is with regard to action of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,24,008/- in respect of sundry creditors u/s.41(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings

DCIT CC 7(1), MUMBAI vs. MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue stand dismissed

transfer pricing proceedings pending for A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y. 2012-13. Thus, it is apparent that the above said addition of Rs.22,80,195/- is not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search. (ii) The addition on account of disallowance of deduction u/s.10B of Rs.3,07,34,644/-has been discussed in para

JT. CIT(OSD), CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue stand dismissed

transfer pricing proceedings pending for A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y. 2012-13. Thus, it is apparent that the above said addition of Rs.22,80,195/- is not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search. (ii) The addition on account of disallowance of deduction u/s.10B of Rs.3,07,34,644/-has been discussed in para

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

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

money gets transferred to Beneficiaries of Long Term Capital Gain via Share Broker's Account. On a sample basis, just to illustrate the modus Share Broker's Account. On a sample basis, just to illustrate the modus Share Broker's Account. On a sample basis, just to illustrate the modus Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi. Sh 5 operandi Investigation Wing, Kolkata

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined at Rs. 4,32,95,82,203/- and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed vide order dt. 23-06-2022. 7. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on various legal as well as on merits

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined at Rs. 4,32,95,82,203/- and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed vide order dt. 23-06-2022. 7. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on various legal as well as on merits