DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

144C(1) dated 28/01/2014 - 90,99,78,259 Add Disallowed u/s 68 (as discussed in para 7 above) 32,21,48,679 Total Income - 123,21,26,938 6.3 Submissions of the appellant in respect of ground number 3 & 4: Submissions of the appellant dated 28.03.2016 is reproduced below: ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAPGEMINI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 55, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The appeal against the order impugned by way of present appeal was originally filed before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal within the prescribed period. Vide order, dated 04/07/2023 [stated to have been uploaded on 17/07/2023] passed in ITA NO. 294/PUN/2018, the aforesaid appeal

MISC BERHAD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

144C(3) read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act'), assessed the total income of the Company at ₹. 1,55,79,820 and consequently determined the refund at ₹.24.45,436. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned AO, the company filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Mumbai

JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-57 INCOME TAX DEPARTMETNT , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the AO had rectified the final assessment order to delete the surcharge and education cess. Therefore, the assessee's grievance was rendered academic.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "250", "253", "143(3)", "144C

DHANESH JYOTINDRA KOTHARI,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE(IT)-3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dhanesh Jyotindra Vs. Ito (It) – 3(1)(1), Kothari,A-Wing, Flat No. Air India Bldg, 6, Mahavir Krupa, Nariman Point, Vallabh Baug Lane, Mumbai-400021. Extn. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-4000077 Pan/Gir No. : Adapk9004H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 147 R.W.S 144C & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

144C(3) of the Act dated 28.04.2022. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) has issued notice and there was compliance by the assessee and there was ITA No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari., Mumbai. delay of 21 days in filling the appeal

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court No.2)

144C(5) of the Act of the DRP. 1.4 That the assessing officer / TPO erred on fact and in law in not appreciating that the average operating profit margin of the comparable companies after considering directions of the DRP is worked out to 7.65 % as against the profit margin of the appellant at 4.015 and therefore, the Transfer Pricing adjustment

PRECILION HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the instant case. 1.3 The appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on the subject, the draft assessment order dated Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 2 of 5 29thDecember 2017 passed in its case for the year under consideration

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI OIL AND GAS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NFAC , DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shapoorji Pallonji Oil & Gas Pvt. The National Faceless Ltd., Assessment Centre, 41/44 Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, Vs. Mumbai. Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Aaecc 9599 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gautam Thacker Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act passed with section 144B of the Act passed by the NaFAC is bad in law since it is not in compliance with by the NaFAC is bad in law since it is not in compliance with by the NaFAC is bad in law since it is not in compliance with

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

delay. Both the appeals either cross objection or cross appeal for the respective assessment years have been delayed filed. The reasons given for late filing of appeal does not show sufficient cause on behalf of the Managing Director of the assessee company. The reason provided for the delayed filing does contain in action or negligence on the part

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

delay. Both the appeals either cross objection or cross appeal for the respective assessment years have been delayed filed. The reasons given for late filing of appeal does not show sufficient cause on behalf of the Managing Director of the assessee company. The reason provided for the delayed filing does contain in action or negligence on the part

TCL INDIA HOLDINGS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No.4912/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Tcl India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Town Centre Ii, 202/203 A&B, Income Tax – Circle 8(3), 2Nd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Room No. 204, Aaykar Bhavan, Marol Naka, Andheri (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400059 Mumbai - 400020 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct9975D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr)

condone the delay, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 5. We have gone through the application as well as the affidavit sworn by Mr. Ajit Singh Rohtas Singh Chouhan, Director TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The deponent has stated that the company had filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the DRP the directions

PERPUTO CONTENT MANAGEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2215 & 2216/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Perputo Content Management Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 9(2)(4) C/O V.N.Deodhar & Co. Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ 4/3 ‘Radha’,1St Floor Vs. Shastri Hall, Grant Road(W) Mumbai-400 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcp-6770-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : V.Jenardhanan,Ld.Dr Assessee By : Milin Thakore,Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24/04/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27 /04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 144C on 16/02/2012 at Rs.142.67 Lacs after certain adjustments / disallowances as against returned income of Rs.23.84 Lacs filed by the assessee on 30/09/2008. The assessment order is stated to be served on the assessee on 28/06/2012. M/s Kulkarni Dhuri & Company, Chartered Accountants [AR] represented the assessee during assessment proceedings and vide letter dated 06/04/2011, they had requested

PERPUTO CONTENT MANAGEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2215 & 2216/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Perputo Content Management Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 9(2)(4) C/O V.N.Deodhar & Co. Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ 4/3 ‘Radha’,1St Floor Vs. Shastri Hall, Grant Road(W) Mumbai-400 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcp-6770-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : V.Jenardhanan,Ld.Dr Assessee By : Milin Thakore,Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24/04/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27 /04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 144C on 16/02/2012 at Rs.142.67 Lacs after certain adjustments / disallowances as against returned income of Rs.23.84 Lacs filed by the assessee on 30/09/2008. The assessment order is stated to be served on the assessee on 28/06/2012. M/s Kulkarni Dhuri & Company, Chartered Accountants [AR] represented the assessee during assessment proceedings and vide letter dated 06/04/2011, they had requested

ANTHONETTE JOAQUIM ANTHONY,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

section 144C(5) of the Act, for the\n assessment year 2017-18.\n\nITA No.6531/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 2\n\n2. For the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay

POMEGRANATE MEDIA (PTY) LTD,SOUTH AFRICA vs. DCIT(IT)-3(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment years 2014–15 and 2015–16, in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The Registry has pointed out a delay of 390 days in filing the present appeals. The assessee has filed applications seeking condonation

MAHARASHTRIYA AIKYAVARDHAK PARASPAR SAHAKARI MANDAL PATPEDHI LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maharashtriya Aikyavardhak Ito Ward 14(2)(1), Paraspar Sahakari Mandal Room No. 457, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Patpedhi Ltd., M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, A Wing, 1St Floor, Pranay Mumbai-400020. Sudarshan, Joshi Lane, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Aabam 5906 H Appellant Respondent

delay nor requested to condonation of the same, therefore, I am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not presenting the appea presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since, l within the specified period. Hence, since

DARAIUS HOMI BILIMORIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-55, MUMBAI

In the result, the various grounds of appeal raised by the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Daraius Homi Bilimoria Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Hfk Madan, 308, Apeejay House, Vs (Appeals) -55, Mumbai. 130, Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan No. Aacpb4087E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 144C(2) on 28.09.2021 and asked the assessee either to make acceptance of the draft assessment within 30 days or to file any objection. The assessing officer recorded that no such objection was filed by assessee. The assessing officer thereby disallowed Rs. 5.04 crore and added back to the total income. The assessing officer treated the entire sale consideration

SABRE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT (IT) CIRCLE-4 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: The Learned Drp. This Grievance Is Reflected In The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

condoned the delay. 13. The Hon 'ble DRP at para no. 5.19 of the directions erred in observing the appellant claimed that the hard copy of the signed Form 35A was sent by couriers from Singapore on 17 January 2019 but was not received till the due date of filing the objections. 3. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue