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

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 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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NARENDRA GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

money for purchase of the asset, are two and cost of raising money for purchase of the asset, a and cost of raising money for purchase of the asset, a different transactions. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme transactions. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme transactions. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

TANISHQ BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CC 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

price, I decided to prepare these bogus charts/chits to demonstrate that the sale of flats are at Rs.27,500/- per sq ft. I confirm that except five flats sold through me as above, I am not involved in sale of any other flats. Various facts were repeatedly put and explained to the Authorized Officers but applying pressure tactics, they forced

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TANISHQ BUILDERS, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

price, I decided to prepare these bogus charts/chits to demonstrate that the sale of flats are at Rs.27,500/- per sq ft. I confirm that except five flats sold through me as above, I am not involved in sale of any other flats. Various facts were repeatedly put and explained to the Authorized Officers but applying pressure tactics, they forced

DIKESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

pricing policy etc. He further submitted that it cannot be said that all conversations have fructified into sales. He also submitted that he was confronted with 4 – 5 sample audio files only, out of the 535 files. He further submitted that the iphone contained around 3000 audio files, but it is not discernible as to why the AO chose

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DIKESH RAMESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

pricing policy etc. He further submitted that it cannot be said that all conversations have fructified into sales. He also submitted that he was confronted with 4 – 5 sample audio files only, out of the 535 files. He further submitted that the iphone contained around 3000 audio files, but it is not discernible as to why the AO chose

DIKESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

pricing policy etc. He further submitted that it cannot be said that all conversations have fructified into sales. He also submitted that he was confronted with 4 – 5 sample audio files only, out of the 535 files. He further submitted that the iphone contained around 3000 audio files, but it is not discernible as to why the AO chose

DCIT C.C. 3(2) `, MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

pricing adjustment @ 1.50% of the Guarantee amount given by the assessee. 7.2 The ld CIT(A) noticed that an identical TP adjustment made in the assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

M/S. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT TAX CENT. CIRCLE-3(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

pricing adjustment @ 1.50% of the Guarantee amount given by the assessee. 7.2 The ld CIT(A) noticed that an identical TP adjustment made in the assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

M/S. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT . CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

pricing adjustment @ 1.50% of the Guarantee amount given by the assessee. 7.2 The ld CIT(A) noticed that an identical TP adjustment made in the assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

DCIT C.C. 3(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

pricing adjustment @ 1.50% of the Guarantee amount given by the assessee. 7.2 The ld CIT(A) noticed that an identical TP adjustment made in the assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court