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

section 115JB is not sustainable, there is no need to go into the merits of the findings of the AO that the sum of Rs. 32,21,48,679/- represents unexplained cash credit. Accordingly ground no 3 & 4 are allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal and the assessee has filed cross

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

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

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

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

8 and later under clause (e) of the said section. The notary while administering oath to the signatory of the affidavit is required to make an endorsement to the effect that the assessee has sworn or affirmed the contents of affidavit before him. The place and date of administration of oath is also required to be mentioned. The procedure

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

8 and later under clause (e) of the said section. The notary while administering oath to the signatory of the affidavit is required to make an endorsement to the effect that the assessee has sworn or affirmed the contents of affidavit before him. The place and date of administration of oath is also required to be mentioned. The procedure

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

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

condone the delay. As we have noted earlier, the final assessment order, pursuant to the DRP order, was framed on 30th October 2018. The assessee is aggrieved of the final assessment order so passed and in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case

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)

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) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16/08/2017 घोषणा

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

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

POMEGRANATE MEDIA (PTY) LTD,SOUTH AFRICA vs. DCIT(IT)-3(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

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 by Affidavit

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

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

8 days only. The delay is not intentional and it was due to administrative reasons in getting approval of competent authority. Hence, the 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

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

8 days only. The delay is not intentional and it was due to administrative reasons in getting approval of competent authority. Hence, the 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

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

condone the delay in filing of objections before the DRP; and (iv) the Assessing Officer is to go ahead with the passing of assessment order in terms of the provisions of Section 144C(15) of the Act. The finding # (ii) is essentially based on the claim of the Assessing Officer, which is denied by the assessee, that the the draft

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

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:-

144C read with the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009. 7. The Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating that even if objections were defective, it was incumbent on the Hon'ble DRP to give an opportunity to the appellant to rectify/ remove the alleged defect in the Form 35A. 8. The Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating