CADMATIC OY,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2). If the assessee chooses to file objections before the DRP, then as per provisions of section 144C(5) the Dispute Resolution Panel shall, issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. Once such directions are issued, section 144C(13) provides that the Assessing Officer shall

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) 2 23.03.2015 Order u/s 143(1) Addition u/s 68 r.w.s 147 passed made to book ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. by the AO profit u/s 115JB of the Act 3 16.09.2017 Order u/s 154 Rectification rectfying the order made on two u/s 147 of the Act issues. dated 23.03.2015 1. unexplained passed

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

144C(3) 228(1) 29 1890/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT (TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Assessee C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 30 2049/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT(TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

144C(3) 228(1) 29 1890/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT (TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Assessee C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 30 2049/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT(TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

144C(3) 228(1) 29 1890/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT (TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Assessee C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 30 2049/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT(TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

144C(3) 228(1) 29 1890/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT (TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Assessee C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 30 2049/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT(TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee

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

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

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

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

2)\n387. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient\ncause for not filing the present appeal within the limitation period and\ntherefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.\nSince the AO has rectified the final assessment order dated 07/09/2021,\nwhich in turn has resulted in the present appeal before

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

144C(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.01.2019 and 05.07.2019 for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively. 2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

144C(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.01.2019 and 05.07.2019 for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively. 2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is ab-initio void being barred by limitation and hence, ought to be struck down. The appellants crave leave to add, to amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute the aforesaid grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing

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

CITICORP TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR FCCB ISSUED BY JINDAL SAW LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

144C(13) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice the ground no. 2 wherein the assessee has raised the legal issue against the action of the AO to have reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act without satisfying the essential condition

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

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

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