“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT

389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court

241

citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT

392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court

202

citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 641/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Nos.641 & 642/Bang/2016 Page 10 of 54 year 2009-10. The DRP confirmed the TPO’s order. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The ld.AR submitted that under the technical and marketing support services segment, the Assessee does not render any services in the nature of ITES ... incurred towards warranty expenditure for which evidence was submitted by the Assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 24. The ld. AR made detailed written submission in this regard the extract of which is given below (i) The assessee has a scientific method of creating the provision

The State Bank of Patiala, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 538/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

been paid back. The First Appellate Authority upheld the reasoning of the Assessing Officer on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, in support of its plea, the assessee placed reliance upon the decisions rendered

The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patiala), Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

ITA 1259/CHANDI/2017[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Lodha Impression Real Estate P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 527/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2016-17) Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To Lodha Impression Real Estate Private Limited,) 412, Floor -4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road,Horniman Circle. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl-1490-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Central Range – 7(3), Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj SethFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) in the preceding Assessment Years has allowed the claim of assessee. The Department carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal upheld the findings of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of Revenue. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee referred

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2CSection 40Section 92C

confirmed the additions/disallowances. Aggrieved by the final order of assessment passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee raised 14 grounds with regard to TP adjustment. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard

M/S. Jupiter Infratrade Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle 6 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2061/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(2)Section 68

also the addition made by the AO. The Ld CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessing officer has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee has discharged the initial

Capgemini S.E. (Formerly Known As Capgemini S A), Navi Mumbai vs. Asstt.Comm. of Income Tax(It), Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed

ITA 1252/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5970/मुं/2019("न.व .2015-16) आअसं. 1252/मुं/2021("न.व .2016-17) Capgemini Se ( Formerly Known As Capgemini Sa), C/O. Capgemini Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd. Block -3, C-Wing, 4Th Floor, Capgemini Knowledge Park, Yosemite, Thane- Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708 Pan: Aadcc-5353-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Int-Tax), Circle -2(1)(1), Room No.1713, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri M.M.Golvala & Raunak Vardhan ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144 C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16 (Order Dated 16/07/2019) & For Assessment

For Appellant: S/Shri M.M.Golvala and Raunak VardhanFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar

Section 144

that taxability of guarantee commission is a recurring issue . In AY 2009-10 similar addition was made. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.7198/Mum/2012. The Tribunal vide order dated 28/3/2016 granted relief to the assessee holding that Article 23.3 has no applicability as income

Capgmini Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int-Tax) CC-2(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed

ITA 5970/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: S/Shri M.M.Golvala and Raunak VardhanFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar

Section 144

Consolidated Marketing Co, Coimbatore vs. The ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 141/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 141/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Consolidated Marketing Co., The Assistant Commissioner Of 189, Bashyakaralu Road East, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 002. [Pan:Aakfc5594P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore, Dated 27.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer, after verifying the details filed by the assessee in respect

Sucram Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(4), Chennai

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

ITA 987/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.987/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Sucram Pharmaceuticals Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Corporate Ward 6(4), H37J, Manthoppu Colony, 8Th Avenue, Chennai. Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. [Pan:Aakcs2196J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Medicines & Drugs & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.03.2013 Admitting Nil Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Cass & After Following Due

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

case for the assessment year 2011-12, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction under section 80IC

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

this decision regarding re-assessment, the other grounds of appeal have become academic and do not require adjudication.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR strongly 4 I.T.A. No. 1914/Chny/19 supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the reopening is valid ... there in section 80HHC at the time when the assessee filed the returns or even the original assessments were made. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the invocation of the proviso to section 147 to be invalid and set aside the reassessments under section 147/148. On appeal: Held

A.Ramesh, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 15, Chennai

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

ITA 1838/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1838/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri A. Ramesh, The Deputy Commissioner Of 21, North Crescent Road, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai -17. Corporate Circle 15, Chennai. [Pan:Aeppr4222Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri C. Ramesh Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 30.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In This Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Whether The Agricultural Land Sold By The Assessee Is Liable For Capital Gain Tax Or Exempt From Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 2(14)

more or less expressed the same view and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as per the revenue records, the land is an agricultural land and the assessee

Hanyang Automotive India Pvt Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 439/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 439/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. S. Palanikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

made addition towards TP adjustment and other corporate tax issues. Being aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee on the issue of transfer pricing adjustment towards international transactions

Neptune Snowden Peak Co Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1832/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80P(2)(d)

appeals who has confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by dismissing the same. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal. 4. We have heard the Ld.authorised representative of the parties to the appeal, gone through the material

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6673/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

scope of Rule 27. The Appellant - assessee, as a respondent before the Tribunal was within its right to support the order under appeal before the Tribunal by attacking the grounds decided against him. It should nevertheless be borne in mind that Rule 27 cannot be invoked by a Respondent ... been decided against him in the order appealed by the Appellant, which has no bearing on the result of order impugned in appeal before the Tribunal, the appropriate remedy would lie in of filing a cross appeal or cross objection. In that event, as explained above, Rule 27 cannot

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6669/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Gundurao Suryavanshi Madhukar (Late) by L/R Rohit M. Suryavanshi, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 692/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR), ITAT

Section 194CSection 57

Rs.4,00,323, being the difference between the income appearing in 26AS and income declared in return. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee ld AR submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.4,00,323 is very much part of the income declared by assessee

M/S Global Infoserve Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate War-2(2), Chennnai

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

ITA 936/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.936/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Global Infoserve Ltd., V. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2B, Corporate Ward-2(2), Sai Subhodaya, Chennai. Thiruvanmayur, Chennai.

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

appeal and thus render justice. 3. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 375 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with Affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal

Dy CIT, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Siemens Technology & Services P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 287/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer submitted the remand report. The remand report favoured the assessee. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal The Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that Unit II and Unit III are entitled for the benefit under Section ... Unit II and Unit III are expansion units of the assessee. This fact has been considered by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) However, the Tribunal without considering the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the said finding. The learned counsel relied on the judgment

Dy CIT, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Siemens Technology & Services P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 286/MUM/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)