VINATI OPRGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for the statistical purpose and that of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

10B on various receipts; and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on various payments made to different non-resident parties for non-deduction of TDS

SULPHUR MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

TDS in time on expenses of Rs.18.59 lacs, that the expenses were added back in computation,that the income thereby was enhanced on which deduction u/s. 10B was claimed, that the AO was not justified in denying the deduction,that the claim made by the assessee would reduce deduction in the subsequent AY.He directed the AO to allow deduction claimed

SULPHUR MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

TDS in time on expenses of Rs.18.59 lacs, that the expenses were added back in computation,that the income thereby was enhanced on which deduction u/s. 10B was claimed, that the AO was not justified in denying the deduction,that the claim made by the assessee would reduce deduction in the subsequent AY.He directed the AO to allow deduction claimed

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. CELETRONIX INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) बनधम/ Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Jabil Circuit (I) Pvt.Ltd., Tax -8(1), Vs. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.103, Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Road No.12, Opp Tunga Paradise, Aayaker Bhavan, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact7548K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.81/Mum/2010 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

10B has to be read without the 12 CO No.81/M/2010 impugned sub-section (9). Therefore, we find much force in the stand taken by the assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. Even on this issue, the assessee is bound to succeed. It is ordered accordingly" In the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd (supra

ACIT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 10(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD (SUCCESSOR COMPANY TO M/S CMC LIMITED), MUMBAI

Accordingly the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/I.T.A.No.6824/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of बिधम M/S Tata Consultancy Income Tax-10 (1) Services Ltd (Successor Vs. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Company To M/S Cmc Floor, M.K. Marg, Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No: .Aaacc2030K .. अपीलार्थी प्रत्यर्थी / Appellant / Respondent

10B of the Act, whose P a g e | 8 ITA No.5903/MUM/2022 (A.Y.2008-09) ITA No.510/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2010-11) TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. language is pari-materia to Section 10A of the Act, this Tribunal following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JB Boda & Co. (P) Ltd v CBDT

DUFLON POLYMERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 10B, noticed that as per TDS certificate attached with the return of income, it has received interest of ` 14,09,124 from

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

10B and 10A of the Act being pari-materia . Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of GE Thermometrics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) we hold that there being no saving clause or any amendment while omitting 26 WNS Global Services Private Limited sub-section (9) of section

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

10B and 10A of the Act being pari-materia . Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of GE Thermometrics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) we hold that there being no saving clause or any amendment while omitting 26 WNS Global Services Private Limited sub-section (9) of section

RENFRO INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

TDS), [2018] (2) TMi 179–ITAT Mumbai; and ii) Prima Paper & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2013] (7) TMI 939–Bombay HC. 5. The learned Departmental Representative strongly opposing condonation of delay submitted, in the additional affidavit also, the assessee has not made out a reasonable cause for condoning the delay. Thus, he submitted, assessee’s appeal should be dismissed

BAJIRAO SHANKAR JAGDALE ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

section 10(10B), the assessee now seeks exemption of such compensation. We find that the assessee filed the claim before the Ld. CIT(A) and since the income of the assessee is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for the refund of the TDS

RED HAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS credit, MAT credit, foreign tax credit, self-assessment tax, and interest under section 244A of the Act, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claims of the assessee on the basis of evidence placed on record and after affording due opportunity of being heard. If the claims are found to be in accordance with law, the same shall

ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SULHUR MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed

TDS in time on expenses of Rs.18.59 lacs, that the expenses were added back in computation,that the income thereby was enhanced on which deduction 8846/10 & 9186/10-SulphurMills u/s. 10B was claimed, that the AO was not justified in denying the deduction,that the claim made by the assessee would reduce deduction in the subsequent AY.He directed the AO to allow

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

TDS @15% amounting to Rs. 14.08 crores service tax amounting to Rs 7.94 crores and R&D Cess amounting to Rs. 2.49 crores,paid by the assessee,on royalty remitted to Unilever Plc.-under the Technical Collaboration Agreement,between the assessee and the AE-was excessive.It alternatively held that if royalty were to be bifurcated then the tax payment made

ACIT-11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax\nRules. However, the aforesaid exercise of determining the ALP in respect of\nthe royalty payable for technical knowhow has not been carried out as\nrequired under the Act. Further, as held by the CIT(A) and upheld by the\nimpugned order of the Tribunal

BE HEALTHY PHARMACY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 41(3)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Be Healthy Pharmacy Pcit-41 Shop No. 04, Gala Residency Room No. 541 Chsl, Gala Compound, Haji Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Bapu Road, Malad East C-41 To 43 Mumbai-400 097. Bandra-E, Mumbai-51. Pan : Aatfb6476A Appellant Respondent

10B deduction and obtained – but without examining them, assessment was completed under section 143(3) and hence revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was held valid. d) K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar, 220 ITR 657 (Mad) : Where the replies filed by appellant were not examined by AO, and a routine assessment was done, then Revision under section 263 is valid. 13. Thus, seen

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10B of the Rules. Hence, we hold that the ld. TPO was not justified in determining the ALP of payment of commission fees to AE at Rs. Nil in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. As stated earlier, in any case, this aspect is already addressed by us in Ground Nos. 3.1 to 3.4 above which shall apply

ASST CIT 10 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S INDOFIL INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

10B shall be of the undertaking located in specified zones or 100% Export Oriented Undertakings, as the case may be, and this shall not have any material relationship with the other business of the assessee outside these zones or units for the purposes of this provision." 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections

ACIT -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HIKAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

section (4) of section 10A section 10A, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of segregating the profits of the busin segregating the profits of the business into export profits and ess into export profits and domestic