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

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

8. The cardinal principles of interpretation of taxing statutes centers around the opinion of Rowlatt, J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. Inland Revenue Commissioner1 which has virtually become the locus classicus2 . The above would dispense with the necessity of any further elaboration of the subject notwithstanding the numerous precedents available inasmuch as the evolution of all such principles are within

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

8. The cardinal principles of interpretation of taxing statutes centers around the opinion of Rowlatt, J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. Inland Revenue Commissioner1 which has virtually become the locus classicus2 . The above would dispense with the necessity of any further elaboration of the subject notwithstanding the numerous precedents available inasmuch as the evolution of all such principles are within

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

8. That, in the month of February, 2012 while preparing the appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08, when the tax consultant asked for the copy of the appeal memo filed for AY 05-06 for the purpose of reference since the issues were common, the appellant company was unable to find the filed appeal memo in Form-36 for Assessment

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

TDS certificate attached with the return of income, it has received interest of ` 14,09,124 from bank which has been credited to Profit & Loss account as business income. When the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to justify his claim of 7 M/s. Duflon Polymers Pvt. Ltd. exemption under section 10B, on the interest income, it was stated

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. 8

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

10B sets out the meaning of computer programmes in certain cases. Section 10C contains special provision in respect of certain industrial undertakings in North Eastern region. Section 11 deals with income from property held for religious or charitable purposes. Section 12 deals with income of trust or institutions from contributions. By section 12A conditions for applicability of sections

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

10B sets out the meaning of computer programmes in certain cases. Section 10C contains special provision in respect of certain industrial undertakings in North Eastern region. Section 11 deals with income from property held for religious or charitable purposes. Section 12 deals with income of trust or institutions from contributions. By section 12A conditions for applicability of sections

EDELWEISS COMMODITIES SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CC-1(1), MUMBAI

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

8) or sub-section (10) of section 80- IA are applicable; or (vi) any other transaction as may be prescribed, and where the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of twenty crore rupees. Section 92(2), as amended provided that where in an international transaction or specified domestic transaction

ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

section 32(1) of the Act on the reasoning that it was license and also represent business and commercial right on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 25%. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee and disallowed the claim. The first appellate authority also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the expenditure

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

TDS under section 194H of the Act was deducted. The nature of these payment were also not enquired by AO. The AO did not get full details of “Listing Fees”, nor enquired. Similarly, the appellant’s claim of applicability of section 194-O of the Act also was not questioned by AO. In view of all these facts

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

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

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