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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI vs. UPL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company engaged in trading of fertilizers, chemicals, agro based products. A search action was carried out on assessee group on 22.01.2020. Consequent upon search action, the assessee approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). The assessee filed application

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI vs. UPL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company engaged in trading of fertilizers, chemicals, agro based products. A search action was carried out on assessee group on 22.01.2020. Consequent upon search action, the assessee approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). The assessee filed application

FAISAL BADRUDDIN SHITWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAX WARD)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrifaisal Badruddin Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Kautilya Shitware Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 307, 1A, Delux Nagar Vs. Complex, Mumbai 400051 Building, Jeevan Baug, Post Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Office Road, Mumbra, Thane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400612 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bvops1660L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai Dated 17.12.2024 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section was introduced to check evasion of tax and the same are not applicable in the facts of the present case. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a non-resident during

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

TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year: 2017-18 Tata Chemicals Limited Pcit-2, Mumbai

144C(5) of the Act from Dispute Resolution Penal ("DRP") which is a collegium of three Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. The learned PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 and setting aside the assessment for A.Y. 2017-18, without appreciating the fact and that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial

DHANAJI MAHADEV THAKUR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -3 PANVEL , RAIGAD

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dhanaji Mahadev Thakur Ito Ward-3 House No. 253, Dhutum Post Jasai Uran Panvel Raigad, Taluka, District – Raigad, Vs. Maharashtra-410 206 Navi Mumbai-410 206

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2 Dhanaji Mahadev Thakur vs. ITO a. Whether a sum of Rs.91,24,050/- deserves to be added in his hand under the provisions of sub clause (b)(ii) of sub section (vii) of sub section (2) of section 56 [56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income

LTIMINDTREE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (2)(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriltimindtree Limited Vs. Acit, Circle (2)(2)(1) (Formerly Larse & Toubro Mumbai/Cit(A)-Nfac- Infotech Limited) Delhi L & T Technology Center, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor , Gate No. 5, Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1681P Appellant .. Respondent

delay, the same is hereby condoned being purely unintentional and due to bonafide reasons. 5. Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee and instead remanded back the case to Ld. AO after observing that the assessment order is an ex-parte order u/s. 144 of the Act. It has been