JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

10A, 10B or section 11 applies, then it requires exclusion of such income from the book profit which has so credited to the profit & loss account likewise if a capital receipt which is not taxable under the Act is credited to the profit & loss account it does not ipso facto reached to a conclusion that it is to be treated

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

capital, human resources, marketing intangibles, intellectual property rights, brand names, R&D activities etc. and risks undertaken or assumed because the reward is intimately linked with risk undertaken, all of which have a significant impact on the pricing of the product and services, market penetrations and consequently on the profit margins. While evaluating the qualitative criteria, various factors like intellectual

LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

capital investment, the borrowing rate will apply, whereas in case of credit allowed to a customer on sale of goods, the lending rate would apply. We do not deem it necessary to enter into this controversy and express our view as regards the same. 44. We are also not expressing any view on adjustment for lack of security as this

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

capital in nature. 7.3 The Ld.AR submitted that,assessee’s business is already set up during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year 2010-11 and the assessee already had necessary infrastructure, employees etc. to commence its business. He thus submitted that, assessee thus had already set up its business in the previous year prior to the year

DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 8, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10A of the Act as well as for t he purpose of computing Capital Gains in terms of Section

PERSTORP CHEMICALS INDIA P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

gains. At that stage the aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the provisions for set off and carry forward contained in sections 70 , 72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The deduction under section 10A therefore would be prior to the commencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter

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

capitalized value of the amount paid towards acquiring M/s. Town and Country Assistance Ltd., as an intangible asset and claimed depreciation @ 25%. Notably, the Assessing Officer while completing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act also allowed assessee’s claim of depreciation. However, learned Commissioner of Income Tax revised the assessment order under section 263 of the Act. Subsequently

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

capitalized value of the amount paid towards acquiring M/s. Town and Country Assistance Ltd., as an intangible asset and claimed depreciation @ 25%. Notably, the Assessing Officer while completing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act also allowed assessee’s claim of depreciation. However, learned Commissioner of Income Tax revised the assessment order under section 263 of the Act. Subsequently

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD ( FORMERLY KNWOAN AS I-FLEX SOLUTIONS LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Oracle Financial Additional Commissioner Services Software Ltd. Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As I-Flex Range 8(2), Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai Oracle Park, Vs. Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Aaacc1448B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit 8(2), M/S. Oracle Financial Room No.216-A, Services Software Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As I-Flex M.K. Road, Vs. Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 399, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aaacc1448B (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains derived by the undertaking from the export of articles or things as provided under section 10A or section 10B of the Act. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd. vs DCIT (Supra). Various other decisions cited by learned counsel

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN M.S, I-FLEX SOLUTIONS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Oracle Financial Additional Commissioner Services Software Ltd. Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As I-Flex Range 8(2), Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai Oracle Park, Vs. Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Aaacc1448B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit 8(2), M/S. Oracle Financial Room No.216-A, Services Software Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As I-Flex M.K. Road, Vs. Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 399, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aaacc1448B (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains derived by the undertaking from the export of articles or things as provided under section 10A or section 10B of the Act. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd. vs DCIT (Supra). Various other decisions cited by learned counsel

ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue for the

capital in nature.\n7.3 The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee's business is already set\nup during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year\n2010-11 and the assessee already had necessary infrastructure,\nemployees etc. to commence its business. He thus submitted\nthat, assessee thus had already set up its business in the\nprevious year prior to the year

ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue for the

capital in nature.\n7.3 The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee's business is already set\nup during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year\n2010-11 and the assessee already had necessary infrastructure,\nemployees etc. to commence its business. He thus submitted\nthat, assessee thus had already set up its business in the\nprevious year prior to the year

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

gain in any business or profession would not be allowable as deduction. Explanation–1 to section 40(a)(ii) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, w.e.f. 1st April 2006, further clarifies that any sum eligible for relief of tax either under section 90 or 91 of the Act would not be allowable as deduction under section

ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gains generated on originally held 1,00,000 shares. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati dayal 214 ITR 801(SC), wherein it has been held that 'if explanation of the assessee is not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer, acting reasonably, there is a prima facie evidence against assessee

BRITLECONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

gains as are derived by an undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software for a period of 10 consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce such articles or things or computer software, as the case may be shall be allowed from

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. HEALTH PRIME SERVICES (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Dcit, Range 8(2), R.No.209, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Health Prime Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. 303, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093 Pan: Aabch 3697Q .... Respondent

capitalized under section 43A of the Act , the CIT(A) held it to be not tenable because section 43A relates to assets which have been acquired from a country outside India, whereas in the instant case, the asset has been acquired from within India itself. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance, against

DY.CIT-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SITEL INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Gains' from business and thereby disallowing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. 3. The CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the interest income earned on fixed deposits by the Appellant was not an independent activity of the Appellant but it had arisen from the business activity of the Appellant and was inextricably linked to the business

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Gains' from business and thereby disallowing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. 3. The CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the interest income earned on fixed deposits by the Appellant was not an independent activity of the Appellant but it had arisen from the business activity of the Appellant and was inextricably linked to the business