LUCENT TECHNOLGIES GRL LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

TDS was made and therefore, since proceedings are initiated under section 148 assessee cannot seek any benefit in the proceedings initiated for the benefit of the revenue . He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs ITO (241 ITR 865) for the proposition of “doctrine of election”. Hence

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(3)(2),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS credit\n10.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) has erred in not granting the credit of INR\n14,512 related to Strides Emerging Market Limited (PAN AARCS5667D),\nwhich was merged during the year.\nGround 11: Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A\n11.1The learned AO and CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in initiating penalty\nproceedings under

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a ITAs No.6715, 6721, 6723, 7292 & 7293/Mum/2025 9 (A.Ys

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a ITAs No.6715, 6721, 6723, 7292 & 7293/Mum/2025 9 (A.Ys

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a ITAs No.6715, 6721, 6723, 7292 & 7293/Mum/2025 9 (A.Ys

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a ITAs No.6715, 6721, 6723, 7292 & 7293/Mum/2025 9 (A.Ys

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a ITAs No.6715, 6721, 6723, 7292 & 7293/Mum/2025 9 (A.Ys

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a company at a free determined price. In an ESOP

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a company at a free determined price. In an ESOP

FAIRBRIDGE CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI - 6, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS deducted on the same\nwith justification of allowability these expenses as business expenses.\n2. Please furnish the details of employees share based payments with details note and\njustification of allowability these expenses as business expenses with documentary\nevidence.\n3. Copy of Assessment order for last three years if any?\"\n6. The assessee filed a detailed reply vide reply dated

DAE (SABS) LEASING IRELAND 43 DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX.CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the findings

ORTUS AIRCRAFT LEASE 6(DUBLIN) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We accordingly so hold. 80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 to 6.8 stand allowed. Nature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease 81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that

TFDAC IRELAND II LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty's object and purpose. We accordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand allowed.\n\n62\nITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before

DAE(SY22) LEASING (IRELAND)41, DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We accordingly so hold. 80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 to 6.8 stand allowed. Nature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease 81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that

DAE (SABS) 10296 IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION), CIRLCE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the findings

SKY HIGH XLIII LEASING COMPANY LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) (1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\n\n63\nITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HELICHARTERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

15A) and as the said claim was rejected by the AO on merits, the assessee took a stand before the Ld.CIT(A) that it is simply in the nature of reimbursement and no TDS ought to have been made. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time

PARTNERS MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC(EARLIER KNOWN AS PARTNERS HARVARD MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.5200 /Mum/2017 Partners Medical International, The Deputy Commissioner Of Inc, [Earlier Known As Partners Harvard Vs. Income Tax (Intl. Taxation) - Medical International, Inc.] 3(3)(2), Room No. 1603, C/O Pricewater House Coopers 16Th Floor, Air India Building, (P), Pwc House, Plot No. 18/A, Nariman Point, Guru Nanak Road, Mumbai - 400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050

15A to 15D of the CIT(A)'s order a summary of the activities undertaken by the assessee for WHL. have been given. A perusal of the same shows that the consideration received by the assessee cannot be said to be royalty as they were not a payment for use of order, the right to use any copy right, trademark