“draft assessment order”

Dboi Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd [ Formerly Dboi Global Services Addl/Jt/Dy/Assit/Cit/Ito, Ltd] Block B-4, Level-6, National E-Assessment Vs. Nirlon Knowledge Park, Centre, New Delhi-110 003 Western Express Highway, Goregoan East, Mumbai-400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2953L

that the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer is not valid. He further submitted that such addition was not made in the draft assessment order but was made only in the final assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer. 013. The learned Authorized Representative also submitted a letter ... have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the learned Assessing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer while passing the draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act on 12th December, 2019 accepted book profit computation of the assessee at ₹246,84,86,353/-. Thus, this

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

amounting to INR 7,19.02,857 as royalty as against the characterization as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as mentioned in the draft assessment order, b) erred in characterizing and taxing the impugned management service fee as royalty by holding that the nature of the services rendered is same ... France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA‘) along with Article 13 of the India USA DTAA and the India Finland DTAA. The AO vide draft assessment order dated 31/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Act treated the TSIS Service Fees

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

amounting to INR 7,19.02,857 as royalty as against the characterization as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as mentioned in the draft assessment order, b) erred in characterizing and taxing the impugned management service fee as royalty by holding that the nature of the services rendered is same ... France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA‘) along with Article 13 of the India USA DTAA and the India Finland DTAA. The AO vide draft assessment order dated 31/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Act treated the TSIS Service Fees

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

amounting to INR 7,19.02,857 as royalty as against the characterization as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as mentioned in the draft assessment order, b) erred in characterizing and taxing the impugned management service fee as royalty by holding that the nature of the services rendered is same ... France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA‘) along with Article 13 of the India USA DTAA and the India Finland DTAA. The AO vide draft assessment order dated 31/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Act treated the TSIS Service Fees

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

amounting to INR 7,19.02,857 as royalty as against the characterization as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as mentioned in the draft assessment order, b) erred in characterizing and taxing the impugned management service fee as royalty by holding that the nature of the services rendered is same ... France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA‘) along with Article 13 of the India USA DTAA and the India Finland DTAA. The AO vide draft assessment order dated 31/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Act treated the TSIS Service Fees

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

Bayer Material Sciences (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 382 ITR 333 wherein hereunder : “ 11. In the present facts, we find that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Petitioner's objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice ... only on 19th March, 2015 and the Petitioner had filed the objections to the same on 25th March, 2015. This passing of the draft Assessment order without having disposed of the objections is in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). Thus, the draft

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

Bayer Material Sciences (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 382 ITR 333 wherein hereunder : “ 11. In the present facts, we find that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Petitioner's objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice ... only on 19th March, 2015 and the Petitioner had filed the objections to the same on 25th March, 2015. This passing of the draft Assessment order without having disposed of the objections is in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). Thus, the draft

M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

raised the additional grounds of appeal as under: 30. Ground of appeal 30 – Time barred assessment liable to be quashed. erred in passing draft assessment order by following procedure laid down under section 144C of the Act without appreciating that provision of Section 144C is not applicable during ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing a draft assessment order in the case of the Appellant in lieu of the final assessment order given that the Appellant does not fall within the definition of "eligible assessee" as per Section 144C

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Us:-

challenge the order of DRP in an appeal. On this ground, the ld. DRP upheld the action of the ld. AO in the draft assessment order. 5. Pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP, the ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 144C

Sakshi Rajan Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2095/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sakshi Rajan Gupta बिधम/ Acit Circle Int Tax- 6, Pankaj Mahal, 2Nd Floor, 1(3)(1) Vs. Jt Siphimalani Marg, Mumbai. Churchgate-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afjpg9115Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pritesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 Dated 09.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee Before Passing The Assessment Order Wherein He Has Disallowed The Expenses Of Rs.28,79,641/- Claimed By The Assessee (Non-Resident).

could not have been disallowed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that since the assessee has not objected before Ld. DRP against the draft assessment order within the 30 days after recipient of it, the AO has 4 A.Y. 2018-19 Sakshi Rajan Gupta rightly passed the final assessment order

Konecranes P.Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1497/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Konecranes Private Limited Pan:Aaacw0328C(Pan Of Merged Entity) Pan Of Old Entity Aacck9930E Being Konecranes India Private Limited) 19, Level -2, Muttha Towers, Don Bosco Road,Yerwada, Dist. Pune – 411 006. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai. Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna With S/Shri Amol Mahajan & Hardik Nirmal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 2. The Assessee Has Filed Additional Ground Of Appeal Vide Application Dated 29/08/2019 Assailing The Validity Of Assessment Order Passed In The Name Of A Non-Existing Entity. The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in passing the draft assessment order dated 17 March 2016 and final assessment order dated 31 January 2017 in the name of 'Konecranes India Private Limited', an entity which is not in existence ... passing the impugned orders on account of its amalgamation with the Appellant. It is the humble prayer of the Appellant that the draft assessment order and final assessment order passed by Ld. AO be held as bad in law, illegal, null and void-ab- initio and as such deserve

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

this the returned income of the assessee of ₹328,69,20,549/- is determined at ₹330,01,03,399/- by passing a draft assessment order on 30th March, 2015. 08. Against the above order, assessee preferred the objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai who passed direction under

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

this the returned income of the assessee of ₹328,69,20,549/- is determined at ₹330,01,03,399/- by passing a draft assessment order on 30th March, 2015. 08. Against the above order, assessee preferred the objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai who passed direction under

Oxford University Press Ai, Mumbai vs. DCIT International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallow 30% of the said expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. The disallowance made by the ld. AO in the draft assessment order was confirmed by the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (ld. DRP in short) with minor relief granted to the assessee. For the purpose

Hannover Millano Fairs Inida P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed transfer pricing adjustment of INR 5,74,45,969/- which was incorporated in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 18.03.2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act. The Appellant filed objections before DRP against the aforesaid ... Draft Assessment Order. Vide order dated 08.12.2016, the DRP granted relief to the Appellant by directing the Assessing Officer to exclude HCCA Business Services Limited as a comparable. However, the DRP declined to grant any other relief to the Appellant. As per directions of DRP, Final Assessment Order was passed