“STPI unit”

Larsen & Toubro Limited (Successor to M/S L & T Valdel Engineering Limited ), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

unit is set up. It was further held that even from perusal of assets, the assessee has purchased few computers for the use of STPI unit and the assessee has not purchased any land for the use of STPI unit. The Assessing Officer therefore, concluded that the assessee has only

Larsen & Toubro Limited (Successor to M/S L & T Valdel Engineering Limited ), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai Earlier AO DCIT, Circle 11(5) Banglore, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

unit is set up. It was further held that even from perusal of assets, the assessee has purchased few computers for the use of STPI unit and the assessee has not purchased any land for the use of STPI unit. The Assessing Officer therefore, concluded that the assessee has only

Larsen & Toubro Limited (Successor to M/S L & T Valdel Engineering Limited ), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle 5(4) Mumbai(Earlier AO DCIT, Circle 11(5) Bangalore ), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

unit is set up. It was further held that even from perusal of assets, the assessee has purchased few computers for the use of STPI unit and the assessee has not purchased any land for the use of STPI unit. The Assessing Officer therefore, concluded that the assessee has only

Larsen & Toubro Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai (Earlier AO DCIT, Circle 11(5) Banglore ., Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

unit is set up. It was further held that even from perusal of assets, the assessee has purchased few computers for the use of STPI unit and the assessee has not purchased any land for the use of STPI unit. The Assessing Officer therefore, concluded that the assessee has only

DCIT 9(3), Mumbai vs. Wipro Technology Services .Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Wipro Technology Tax, Circle 9(3) Services P. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Interface Ii]Link Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Malad (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 064 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc4700G Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Suilgol, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Drs’ Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024

well as certificate of network separation. The fact that the two units sharing a common telephone line is irrelevant. 3.3.8 As regards the STPI unit at Chennai, the same is also approved as "custom bonded wear-house premise and it is on the first floor while the non-STPI unit

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledirecti Internet Vs. Acit-5(1)(2), Solutions Pvt Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Acme-I Tech Park, Old M.K.Road, Nagardas Road, Churchgate, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400069. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg4058M Appellant .. Respondent

confirming the order of Ld. AO allowing arbitrary allocation of general corporate expenses amounting to INR 1,13,26,557 to STPI and Non STPI unit even though separate books were maintained for all the units. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to comprehend ... grossly failed in understanding that re- allocation done by Ld. AO is ultimately amounting to double allocation of expenses to STPI and non STPI unit. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO without having regard to the fact that Appellant has followed the principle

Tech Mahindra Limited (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

Revenue’s appeal pertain to the disallowance made u/s. 10A of the Act pertaining to the business done in the new STPI unit at Bangalore. It is observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10A of the Act amounting to Rs.22,26,44,568/- for its STPI unit ... assessee’s new undertaking was formed by splitting up/reconstruction of the business which was already in existence and that the new undertaking in STPI unit has not fulfilled the second condition laid down in section 10A(2)(ii) of the Act. It is also pertinent to point out that

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

Revenue’s appeal pertain to the disallowance made u/s. 10A of the Act pertaining to the business done in the new STPI unit at Bangalore. It is observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10A of the Act amounting to Rs.22,26,44,568/- for its STPI unit ... assessee’s new undertaking was formed by splitting up/reconstruction of the business which was already in existence and that the new undertaking in STPI unit has not fulfilled the second condition laid down in section 10A(2)(ii) of the Act. It is also pertinent to point out that

Larsen & Tourbro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

action of treating revenue generated from overseas branches as not export service from India and as not derived from Software Technology Park Units ("STPI units") located in India and on that basis holding that in any case the deduction under Section 10A needed to be recomputed and reduced

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

action of treating revenue generated from overseas branches as not export service from India and as not derived from Software Technology Park Units ("STPI units") located in India and on that basis holding that in any case the deduction under Section 10A needed to be recomputed and reduced

Emerson Electric Company (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Delhi

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

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

4713/Del/2011 dated 06/05/2014 wherein it was held as under: "The assessee was engaged in rendering software development and related services with operations in three STPI units in different locations. The assessee had aggregated the services rendered under all the three segments while determining ALP considering that the services rendered were ... transactions, chose to segregate and benchmark each of the units separately by assuming that the functions, assets and risks undertaken by each of the STPI units were distinct from each other. The Delhi Tribunal, observed that the TPO totally disregarded the unity of business, administrative control, and unity of funds

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

services rendered by the appellant to its customers do not form part of exports of the Undertaking comprised in the Software Technology Park Units (“STPI Units”) and on that basis holding that in any case the deduction under Section 10A needed to be recomputed and reduced ... export of software, the revenue earned from onsite services provided by the Appellant cannot be considered as export of software from India derived from STPI Units located in India. Therefore, proposed disallowance of 53.40% of the deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 10A of the Act in proportion

M/S Trine Entertainment Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2011-12

adjudicate the grounds urged on merits. The assessee is engaged in business of developing online and offline games softwares in its 100% export oriented STPI unit. The assessment of the year under consideration was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2013, wherein

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Assessee. 24. The Ld.DR submitted that the depreciation claim for STPI & non-STPI should be segregated since the depreciation claimed in respect of STPI units was adjustable against the income exempt under section 10A and not against the profits of other units. During the course of hearing the Bench directed ... Ld.AR to submit the workings giving the break-up of depreciation between STPI & non-STPI units. The Ld.AR submitted the workings as reproduced below:- Depreciation allocated on the basis of respective turnover of STPI and Non STPI units Turnover % Allocated STPI units depreciation depreciation Ashoka Plaza