Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

368 ITR 1High Court2014#563 most cited

What is Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

172

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vodafone India Services v. UOI · issue of shares · share premium · capital account transaction · transfer pricing · Chapter X applicability · international transaction · notional income · section 92 · section 56(2)(viib)

Also reported as

50 Taxmann.com 300228 Taxmann 25

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 147Section 131Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 263Section 144C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 56(1)section 92(1)section 56(2)(viib)dcf methodonus of proofshare capital and share premiumsource of sourcesection 40a(2)(b)disallowance of interest expenditureshare application moneysection 40a(2)section 92b

Judgments citing Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4067/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…010 (Delhi) (ITAT) • Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs DCIT: 304 ITR 167 (Mum. ITAT) • Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT: 285 ITR 43 (Mum. ITAT) 102. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 368 ITR 1 has also held that money received on account of share capital is capital in nature not chargeable to tax. 103. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the said addition holding that money received on account of shares is capital in nature and accordingly, the same is confir…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2280/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…010 (Delhi) (ITAT) • Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs DCIT: 304 ITR 167 (Mum. ITAT) • Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT: 285 ITR 43 (Mum. ITAT) 102. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 368 ITR 1 has also held that money received on account of share capital is capital in nature not chargeable to tax. 103. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the said addition holding that money received on account of shares is capital in nature and accordingly, the same is confir…

ACIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…010 (Delhi) (ITAT) • Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs DCIT: 304 ITR 167 (Mum. ITAT) • Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT: 285 ITR 43 (Mum. ITAT) 102. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 368 ITR 1 has also held that money received on account of share capital is capital in nature not chargeable to tax. 103. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the said addition holding that money received on account of shares is capital in nature and accordingly, the same is confir…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 413/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…010 (Delhi) (ITAT) • Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs DCIT: 304 ITR 167 (Mum. ITAT) • Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT: 285 ITR 43 (Mum. ITAT) 102. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 368 ITR 1 has also held that money received on account of share capital is capital in nature not chargeable to tax. 103. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the said addition holding that money received on account of shares is capital in nature and accordingly, the same is confir…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 341/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…010 (Delhi) (ITAT) • Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs DCIT: 304 ITR 167 (Mum. ITAT) • Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT: 285 ITR 43 (Mum. ITAT) 102. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 368 ITR 1 has also held that money received on account of share capital is capital in nature not chargeable to tax. 103. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the said addition holding that money received on account of shares is capital in nature and accordingly, the same is confir…

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 220/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…010 (Delhi) (ITAT) • Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs DCIT: 304 ITR 167 (Mum. ITAT) • Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT: 285 ITR 43 (Mum. ITAT) 102. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 368 ITR 1 has also held that money received on account of share capital is capital in nature not chargeable to tax. 103. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the said addition holding that money received on account of shares is capital in nature and accordingly, the same is confir…

Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 167/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…010 (Delhi) (ITAT) • Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs DCIT: 304 ITR 167 (Mum. ITAT) • Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT: 285 ITR 43 (Mum. ITAT) 102. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 368 ITR 1 has also held that money received on account of share capital is capital in nature not chargeable to tax. 103. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the said addition holding that money received on account of shares is capital in nature and accordingly, the same is confir…

Arm Infra & Utilities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2212/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…Once, it is found that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) cannot be applied, the receipt of share premium being a capital receipt cannot be taxed. [Refer: The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. Vs. UOI (368 ITR 1) and Pr. CIT Vs. Apeak Infotech (397 ITR 148) cited at the time of hearing wherein it has been held that receipt of share premium is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. 2.2.5. Further, the Appellant further submits that Department cannot re-characterize the transaction relating to issue of debentures to issue of equity shares in the absenc…

DCIT 9(3(2), Mumbai vs. G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3203/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2010-11
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e assessee company as on 31.03.2009 was Rs. 484/- The assessee further submitted that share premium is capital receipt and not taxable for which reliance is placed on Hon'ble High Court’s Decision in case of Vodaphone India Services P.L,td. v/s Union of India 368 ITR 1 (Bombay) Para No. 25, CIT v/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 394 ITR 680 (Bombay High Court) and CIT v/s Anshika Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 93 CCH 0016 (Del HC) dated 16/4/2015.This submission of assessee appears to be correct as per judgments cited as above 13 M/s. G.L. Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vii). All investor companies are still share holders…

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma
Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Mahendra H. Shah v. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/o. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 PAN: AAFPS0929R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Vimal Punmiya Department by : Smita Verma Date of hearing : 29.07.2021 Date of pronouncement : 27.09.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Mumbai [hereinafter…

DCIT Circle- 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Jostar Orgotech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 103/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 103/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-(6)(3)(2) M/S Jostar Orgotech Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, R. No. 576 A-501, Innova Marathon Next Gen. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400 008 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-2496-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri J. P. Bairagra– Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 30/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 02/09/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) On 28/03/2015. The Sole Ground By The Revenue Read As Under: - On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,68,60,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Share Application Money/Share Capital & Share Premium Which Is Held As Unexplained

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Bairagra– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…g out of capital account transaction unless so specified in Section 2(24) of the Act as income. The legal position that share premium is not income is well-settled by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Ltd. vs Union of India, 368 ITR 1 at pg.30. However, share capital, which is otherwise a capital receipt, can be added as income only by a deeming provision of section 68 of the Act subject to the conditions laid down in the said section. Therefore, it is important to understand the position of law u/s 68 of the Act which has evolved from a catena of judgments delivered by the Cour…

DCIT CC 2(4), Mumbai vs. Concord Enviro Systems P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3897/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11
Section 56(1)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pavankumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 3897/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Vs. M/s. Concord Enviro DCIT-CC-2(4) Room No. 802 Systems Pvt. Ltd. 8th Floor 101, HDIL Tower Old CGO Annex Bldg Anant Kanekar Marg M.K. Road Banddra East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. PAN : AAACC8962C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Percy Pardiwala Department by Shri V. Sreekar Date of Hearing 05.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) d…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri B. Rudragouda, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.2198, BKG House, of Income Tax, KHB Colony, Circle 1, Sandur, Bellary – 583 101. Bellary. PAN: AFUPG 1386A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Chythanya K.K., Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 12.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 15.04.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Me…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri B. Rudragouda, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.2198, BKG House, of Income Tax, KHB Colony, Circle 1, Sandur, Bellary – 583 101. Bellary. PAN: AFUPG 1386A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Chythanya K.K., Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 12.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 15.04.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Me…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…was paid by CUIH to Dabur not to sell its stake in the co-promoted company, i.e. Aviva Life Insurance Co. to any third person except to CUIH in a given time. 6.2 The investment in shares to acquire controlling stakes is a capital investment. He relied up on 368 ITR 1 (Bom) Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, 311 CTR 344 (Del) Nestle SA vs. ACIT, CBDT Instruction No. 2 of 2015 dated 29.1.2015 in [2015] 274 CTR (St) 65 , 41 ITR 534 (SC) Ram Narain& Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 6.3 Under the commercial world, the controlling stake in a company is always attached with the shareholding and if any shares enjoyin…

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Aaradhana Realities ACIT 6(2)(2), Ltd. (Formerly known as Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Investments Ltd.) M.K. Road, Manickam Complex, Mumbai - 400020 Ground Floor, Vs. 1/3, General Patters Road, Chennai, Tamilnadu- 600 002 PAN: AABCE0686Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, A.R Revenue by : Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.12.2020 Date o…

Shakti Share Shoppee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4100/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.4100 & 4101/M/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s. Shakti Share The Income-Tax Officer, Shoppee Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(2)(3), B-302, Rangoli Vasant Aayakar Bhavan, Utsav, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Thakur Village, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 PAN: AAACS 9220 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.R. Revenue by : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 O R D E R Per Raj…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in AY 2008-09 is partly allowed and

ITA 794/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarvertual Court No. Iii It(Tp)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09 It(Tp) No. 794/Mum/2018 For Ay 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs Dcit Ltd.,9Th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29Th Floor, Wtc, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade Pan Aaacr4849R Mumbai- 05. Appellant Respondednt

For Appellant: with Sh. Manish Kumar KanthFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 40Section 90Section 90(1)(a)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vertual Court No. III IT(TP)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 for AY 2008-09 IT(TP) No. 794/Mum/2018 For AY 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs DCIT ltd.,9th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29th Floor, WTC, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade PAN AAACR4849R Mumbai- 05. APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT IT(TP)A No. 3746/Mum2016 for AY 2008-09 IT(TP)A No. 1207/Mum2018 for AY 2010-11 DCIT Vs Tata Consultancy Services ltd.,9th Floor, Nirmal Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29th Floor, WTC, Cufee…

DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd. 9Formerly Known As Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1560/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh & Vertual Court No. Iv Dcit, Circle 1(3)1, .M/S. Teleperformence Global Aayakar Bhavan, Services Private Limited, M.K. Road, (Earlier Known As “Intel Mumbai-400020 Global Services Private Vs. Limited”), Teleperformence Towers, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad, (West) Mumbai-400090 Pan: Aabcv2572L Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry Sr Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 254(1)

…Penal (DRP). The ld. DRP upheld the adjustments on item No. 1 to 3(shown in table above), however, on account of adjustment for investments in shares in AE, was deleted by following the order of Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 1. The DRP while upholding the adjustments on item No. 1 to 3 followed the directions of their predecessor in ITA No. 1560,1664 &5828/M/2015 (AY 2010-11 & 2011-12) Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. Further aggrieved both the parties have filed their respective appeal. 5. We have heard the submissions of Sh. J.D. Mistry…

Serco Bpo P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5828/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh & Vertual Court No. Iv Dcit, Circle 1(3)1, .M/S. Teleperformence Global Aayakar Bhavan, Services Private Limited, M.K. Road, (Earlier Known As “Intel Mumbai-400020 Global Services Private Vs. Limited”), Teleperformence Towers, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad, (West) Mumbai-400090 Pan: Aabcv2572L Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry Sr Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 254(1)

…Penal (DRP). The ld. DRP upheld the adjustments on item No. 1 to 3(shown in table above), however, on account of adjustment for investments in shares in AE, was deleted by following the order of Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 1. The DRP while upholding the adjustments on item No. 1 to 3 followed the directions of their predecessor in ITA No. 1560,1664 &5828/M/2015 (AY 2010-11 & 2011-12) Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. Further aggrieved both the parties have filed their respective appeal. 5. We have heard the submissions of Sh. J.D. Mistry…