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

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

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

sections": [ "250", "253", "143(3)", "144C(3)", "154", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether the levy of surcharge and education cess over and above the DTAA rates is permissible, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

ACIT-6(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR POWER LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 6(1)(1), Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S M/S. Essar Power Limited, 11Th Floor Essar House, 11 K.K. Marg, ……………… Respondent Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaace0895J Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Neena Jeph, Cit-Dr

condoned. 3. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: - 2 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the adjustment @LIBOR for calculating interest on the outstanding receivables without assigning OR giving adequate reasons for the same and ignoring the rate of interest arrived

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) served 5f on 28.06.2012. 5 E-mail dated 12.03.2012 Mail sent from PCMPL to the AR asking if any scrutiny notice was 3 received for AY 2008-09 so that way forward can be discussed with the liquidator. 6 E-mail dated 30.05.2012 Mail sent from PCMPL to the ARs requesting to forward

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 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) served 5f on 28.06.2012. 5 E-mail dated 12.03.2012 Mail sent from PCMPL to the AR asking if any scrutiny notice was 3 received for AY 2008-09 so that way forward can be discussed with the liquidator. 6 E-mail dated 30.05.2012 Mail sent from PCMPL to the ARs requesting to forward

UCB INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 8(3)(1) , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

144C(1) read with Section 143(3) of the Act. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised 7. Representative for Appellant submitted that there was a delay in filing the present appeal as the Appellant had approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court disposed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 2240 of 2021 filed by the Appellant

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