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

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

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

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

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

Capital Gains in terms of Section 50B of the Act. 6. The CIT’s direction regarding reduction under Section 10A of the Act are, in any event, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as they were never the subject of the CIT’s Section 263 notice and were never put to the Appellant”. 2. Brief facts

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 ()

3) Disallowance of expenditure towards issue of bonus share amounting to Rs.70,923/- (4) Disallowance of expenditure towards increased in authorities share capital amounting to Rs. 14,00,000/- A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13, Zensar Technologies Ltd (5) Disallowance of depreciation on capital expense Rs.1039/- and disallowance of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation before giving effect to deduction

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

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

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

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

capital gains', which is not relevant for the\npresent case. On examining the aforesaid provisions, as referred in section 80\nITA No.2458/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n19\nof the Act, prima facie, these sections do not cover or deal with procedure of\nsetting off of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance.\n10. Section 32 of the Act deals with different types

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

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

3) Disallowance of expenditure towards issue of bonus share\namounting to Rs.70,923/-\n(4) Disallowance of expenditure towards increased in authorities\nshare capital amounting to Rs.14,00,000/-\n(5) Disallowance of depreciation on capital expense Rs.1039/-\nand disallowance of brought forward loss and unabsorbed\ndepreciation before giving effect to deduction u/s.10A.\n4.4 On receipt of the draft assessment

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

3) Disallowance of expenditure towards issue of bonus share\namounting to Rs.70,923/-\n(4) Disallowance of expenditure towards increased in authorities\nshare capital amounting to Rs.14,00,000/-\n(5) Disallowance of depreciation on capital expense Rs.1039/-\nand disallowance of brought forward loss and unabsorbed\ndepreciation before giving effect to deduction u/s.10A.\n4.4 On receipt of the draft assessment

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Capital Gains in accordance with the 3rd Proviso to Sec, 10(38).” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of investment holdings and consultancy services. The assessee electronically filed its return of income on 30/11/2011 and subsequently e-filed a revised return of income on M/s. Tata Sons Limited ITA No.4323/Mum./2017 and ITA No.4221/Mum./2017 29/03/2013, declaring total

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Capital Gains in accordance with the 3rd Proviso to Sec, 10(38).” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of investment holdings and consultancy services. The assessee electronically filed its return of income on 30/11/2011 and subsequently e-filed a revised return of income on M/s. Tata Sons Limited ITA No.4323/Mum./2017 and ITA No.4221/Mum./2017 29/03/2013, declaring total