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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:-

5. The Hon'ble DRP having accepted and registered the objections in its record, erred in dismissing the objections as not maintainable and thereby foreclosing the right of the appellant to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as per section 246A of the Act. 6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in holding that

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 of delay supported

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

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

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

YASH JWELLERY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 11(3)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the application and supporting affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay falls within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag