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

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

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)

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds pressed during the course of hearing by Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant/Assessee. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant invited our attention to the Ground No. 16 and 17 raised as additional ground

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

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation. 1.2 The Assessing Officer has erred in passing a draft assessment order dated 29th December, 2017, under 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

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)

13) passed in pursuance of directions of dispute resolution penal-1 (DRP) dated 12.07.2016 for assessment year (AY) 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the assessment under section 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income

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

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

SP ARMADA OIL EXPLORATION P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-3(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Us.

delay can be condoned, and, if necessary, on the merits of the grievance of the assessee. 6. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we vacate the impugned rectification order dated 31st March 2021 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) and 144C(13

AEGIS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') after considering the adjustments made by learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('IPO') in his order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act and subsequently confirmed by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'). GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING MATTERS: 2. The learned TPO / AO / DRP have erred in making an addition

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AEGIS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') after considering the adjustments made by learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('IPO') in his order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act and subsequently confirmed by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'). GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING MATTERS: 2. The learned TPO / AO / DRP have erred in making an addition

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

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

M/S UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 11 (1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Us Is Engaged In The Business Of Air & Ocean & Freight Forwarding, Warehousing & Clearing Agent, The Assessee Has Entered Into A Number Of International Transactions With Its Associated Enterprises Abroad & That, As A Consequence Of The Order Passed Under Section

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment 2015-16. 2. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has raised the grievance that “on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the draft assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 144C(1) is bad in law and is liable

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2017-18. ITA No.6531/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 2 2. For the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, the slight delay of 13

PARTNERS MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL , INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 747/Mum/2015 & 3609/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Partners Medical International, Inc. Dy. Cit (Intl. Taxation)-3(3)(2), (Earlier Known As Partners Harvard Mumbai Medical International, Inc.) बनाम/ C/O. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (P) Vs. Ltd., Pwc House, Plot No. 18/A, Guru Nanak Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch 2171 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Shri Ravi Sawana ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Samuel Darse

13 – Levy of interest under section 234A and 234D On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned DCIT erred in levying interest under sections 234A and 234D of the Act amounting to Rs.1,93,191 and Rs.1,62,006 respectively. 7 ITA Nos. 747/M/2015 & 3609/M/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) Partners Medical International

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

13. That, for the purposes of computing the said capital gains, deduction ought to have been allowed of Rs. 14,09,020 as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer in accordance with section 48(i) of the Act. 14. That the capital gains so determined ought to have been charged to tax at the rate

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

condonation of delay, took us through chronology of the events to support his stand in the following manner:- Sr. Event date /Reference Particulars Page Affidavit No. No. of para no. Paper book 1 April / May 2010 Termination of all employed staff and shut down of operations, since 1-2 5c Perputo Inc. (the sole customer of Perputo Content Management Private