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

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

gains derived by the undertaking from the export of things or computer software is available from the total income, if the proceeds from sale of articles/things/computer software exported out of India is received in India in convertible foreign exchange as prescribed. Clause (iv) Explanation 2 to sec. 10A defines export turnover as the consideration in respect of export

GURUVASTU PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Guruvastu Properties P. Ltd. Dcit – 1(1)(4) 47, 7Th Floor, Tardeo Ac Market 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034 M K Road, Mumbai-400 020

10A, 10B) credited to the P & L A/c has to be reduced. In the instant case, the capital gain arising on transfer of capital asset is exempt u/s. 54EC by virtue of investment in Bonds to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs. As per Explanation 1 below to the second proviso to sub section

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

gains by an industry entitled to benefit under Section 80-E cannot be reduced by the loss suffered by any other industry or industries owned by the assessee. 15. In the case before us, there is no discussion about Section 80-IA(5) by the Appellate Authority, nor the Tribunal and the High Court. However, we have considered the submissions

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains\nderived by the undertaking from the eligible business, and the business of\nleasing out of assets is not one such business as referred to in section 80-\nIA(4) of the Act. The AO further held that the income relating to such sharing\nof infrastructure with other operators is not related to providing\ntelecommunication services by the assessee

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains\nderived by the undertaking from the eligible business, and the business of\nleasing out of assets is not one such business as referred to in section 80-\nIA(4) of the Act. The AO further held that the income relating to such sharing\nof infrastructure with other operators is not related to providing\ntelecommunication services by the assessee

TECH MAHINDRA BUISNESS SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital market. The company caters to the niche market segment of financial content and its targeted clientele include well known and respected American Corporate. Thus, as it appears, the company is functionally dissimilar to the assessee. It is also observed, in case of Stream International Services Pvt Ltd vs The ADIT (supra) and AOL Online India Private Limited vs DCIT

DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TECH MAHINDRA BUSINESS SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital market. The company caters to the niche market segment of financial content and its targeted clientele include well known and respected American Corporate. Thus, as it appears, the company is functionally dissimilar to the assessee. It is also observed, in case of Stream International Services Pvt Ltd vs The ADIT (supra) and AOL Online India Private Limited vs DCIT

ASST CIT RG 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CRISIL LTD, MUMBAI

10A of the Act\n8. Not giving credit in full for the amount of tax deducted at source of\nRs. 16,08,00,850 claimed in the revised return of income filed under\nsection 139(5) of the Act.\n9. Not considering advance tax payments of Rs. 25,000 and Rs.\n3,75,00,000 paid on 14th June

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.8389/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2005-06) Dcit-2(3), Room No.555, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacz 0742 K ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit - Dr "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

capital gain made in revised computation of total income and also the claim in respect of interest u/s.244A of the Act. The Department is in appeal against the findings of CIT(A) allowing relief to the assessee. 3. The grounds of appeal by the Department assailing the order of CIT(A) are as under: “On the facts

LAXMAN GORE SHRESHTHA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

10A) or section 10(10D), whereas the assessee\nhas never made such claim of exemption during the filing of return of income.\nThis is purely in the nature of gain of the assessee which the assessee may declare\nas capital

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

section 2(45) of the Act), Page | 12 ITA No. 113/Mum/2024 and ITA No. 650/Mum/2024 Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust; A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 prescribing two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in section4(1) and, two, must be computed in the manner laid down under