← All Phrases

“TRC”

International TaxSection 90(4)Section 90(4)456 judgments

The decision most relied on for TRC is India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India (341 ITR 1), cited in 295 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on TRC

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.
340 ITR 333 · 2012 · High Court
161
citing judgments

A deductor's bonafide belief or reliance on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) can influence whether they are deemed an 'assessee in default' under Section 195 for failing to deduct tax at source on payments to non-residents. The decision clarifies the due diligence required when interpreting tax treaties and TRCs for TDS compliance.

Edenred Pte. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International
118 Taxmann.com 2 · 2020 · Reported
14
citing judgments

The case is authority for the proposition that where a tax treaty provides for a more beneficial treatment than the Income Tax Act, the treaty provisions will prevail, provided certain conditions under section 90(2) are met.

SMS Concast AG v. DDIT, 110 ITR (T) 138 (Delhi-Trib)
157 Taxmann.com 64 · 2023 · Reported
13
citing judgments

Receipts for offshore designing and engineering services are not taxable in India if there is no permanent establishment (PE) in India. A payer withholding tax does not automatically make the receipts taxable in India.

Judgments citing TRC

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2891/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)
Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 80JSection 9(1)(vii)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made. Further, he submitted, only because the assessee was unable to furnish the TRC in respect of some of the payees, the Assessing Officer has disallowed part of expenditure. He submitted, non-furnishing of TRCs cannot be the sole reason for disallowing ... assessee’s claim when the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted. He submitted, since, the assessee has no control over issuance of TRC by foreign jurisdiction, the disallowance should not have been made, when all other evidences including Outward Telegraphic Transfer Application Form, invoices, etc. were furnished. He submitted

DCIT Intl Tax Cir-4(3) (2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Win on Shipping, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2079/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla/For Respondent: Shri Somendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 90(4)

Officer noticed that the Assessee had claimed tax relief of INR.65,54,109/- in terms of the Tax Treaty. However, the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) furnished by the Assessee was for the period commencing on 31.12.2015 and ending on 30.12.2016. Since the Assessee did not hold a valid TRC ... appeal of the Assessee taking into consideration the following: (a) the Assessee was in the first year of its operation and could apply for TRC in UAE only on completion of one year from the date of its formation, (b) the TRC for the calendar year 2015 furnished

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

case are that, assessee is a company incorporated in and is a tax resident of Mauritius and holds a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC). During the year under consideration, the Assessee was registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a sub-account of JP Morgan Indian ... year. This will include the provisions for carry forward of loss. 24. In the present case, Assessee being the resident of Mauritius holding valid TRC is eligible to claim treaty benefits. In this regards, Article 13 of India- Mauritius DTAA on Capital gains is noteworthy. The relevant extracts of Article

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2889/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)
Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80J

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made. Further, he submitted, only because the assessee was unable to furnish the TRC in respect of some of the payees, the Assessing Officer has disallowed part of expenditure. He submitted, non-furnishing of TRCs cannot be the sole reason for disallowing ... assessee’s claim when the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted. He submitted, since, the assessee has no control over issuance of TRC by foreign jurisdiction, the disallowance should not have been made, when all other evidences including Outward Telegraphic Transfer Application Form, invoices, Page

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

whether Aricent Technologies can be regarded as a tax resident of Mauritius. In this regard, the assessee had filed a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) wherein it has been mentioned that Aricent Technologies is a tax resident of Mauritius but that certificate mentions that it is issued under an agreement between ... Republic of Mauritius. Hence, this certificate was disregarded by the Revenue authorities. It is the plea of the assessee before the Tribunal that a TRC has been issued even with ITA Nos. 852 & 831/Bang/2017 Page 50 of 59 reference to (Treaty) Agreement between India and the Republic of Mauritius

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

whether Aricent Technologies can be regarded as a tax resident of Mauritius. In this regard, the assessee had filed a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) wherein it has been mentioned that Aricent Technologies is a tax resident of Mauritius but that certificate mentions that it is issued under an agreement between ... Republic of Mauritius. Hence, this certificate was disregarded by the Revenue authorities. It is the plea of the assessee before the Tribunal that a TRC has been issued even with ITA Nos. 852 & 831/Bang/2017 Page 50 of 59 reference to (Treaty) Agreement between India and the Republic of Mauritius

Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2127/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT

ITO, (It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2823/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2823/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S International Ito(It)-2(2)(2), Reinsurance & R. No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Insurance Consultancy India Building, Nariman & Broking Services Pvt. Point, बिधम/ Ltd. Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 15Th Floor, B-Wing, Nirmal Building, 241/242, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaci2859J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Atul T. Suraiya, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, LdFor Respondent: Shri Atul T. Suraiya, Ld
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

country of domicile and not in India as admittedly they do not have PE in India. The assessee has already filed copy of TRC, Form 10F of these NRR entities alongwith no PE declaration which fact has not been controverted by the AO. In absence of PE, the premium received

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made. Further, he submitted, only because the assessee was unable to furnish the TRC in respect of some of the payees, the Assessing Officer has disallowed part of expenditure. He submitted, non-furnishing of TRCs cannot be the sole reason for disallowing ... assessee’s claim when the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted. He submitted, since, the assessee has no control over issuance of TRC by foreign jurisdiction, the disallowance should not have been made, when all other evidences including Outward Telegraphic Transfer Application Form, invoices, etc. were furnished. He submitted

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6755/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69

Hence I hold that the sums assessed under section 68 cannot be assessed in any case in India. 12. The aspect of TRC is not discussed since relevant provisions relating to TRC was introduced w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14. 5 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan 13. In view of forgoing discussion

Asstt. CIT -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 908/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 908 & 909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit Circle-3(1)(1) M/S. Rideema Toll Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, 6Th Floor, M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ltd. 501-B, 5Th Floor, Silver Utopia Road, Mumbai-400020. Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0266H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13. Ita. No.909/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Made On

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 195Section 40

disallowance of Rs.48,28,501/- we observe that the appellant had submitted copies of debit notes, third party invoices, salary statement of the employee, TRC of Sanofi, No PE certificate, Form No. 15CA and 15CB and these documents establish that payments pertain to pure cost reimbursement. 9.9 Regarding reimbursement ... Rs.8,07,994/- we find that the appellant had submitted copies of debit notes, third party invoices, salary agreement of the employee and TRC of JL Morison and these documents establish that the payments pertain to pure cost reimbursements. 9.13 Regarding reimbursement of special discounts of Rs.5

Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Amit Avinash Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 166/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dy. CIT CC- 2(3), Mumbai vs. Amit Avinash Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 165/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 123/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dharam Bhushan Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4578/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap MallFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 57Section 57o

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K

M/S Moonfrog Labs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3066/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Moonfrog Labs Pvt. Ltd., 16/3, Level-3, The Assistant Adarsh Yellavarthy Centre, Commissioner Of Cambridge Road, Income Tax, Ulsoor Jogupalya, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore – 560008. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaicm9563H Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh .K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore (`A0') Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeals)-4 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL