TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

depreciation on intangible asset of Rs.90,65,75,040/-; and disallowance u/s.14A of the Act of Rs.7,84,950/-. The assessee preferred objections before the ld. DRP. The ld. DRP issued directions u/s.144C(5) of the Act on 20/03/2021. Pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP, the ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), wherein the loss assessed is Rs. 38,62584 in pursuance to the directions issued by the DRP, as against the returned loss of Rs. 105 77,29,782 TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS: 2 Ground No. 2 to 4 Import of finished goods 3 Ground No. 5 to 6 Sale of Lubricants

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), wherein the loss assessed is Rs. 38,62584 in pursuance to the directions issued by the DRP, as against the returned loss of Rs. 105 77,29,782 TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS: 2 Ground No. 2 to 4 Import of finished goods 3 Ground No. 5 to 6 Sale of Lubricants

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

3. Grant of lesser deduction under section 48,53,467 10AA of the Act in respect of remaining units 4. Denial of claim of depreciation on 2,92,19,122 goodwill 5. Disallowance for provision for project 17,16,22,641 risk 6. Disallowance under section 40(a) on 16,65,932 account of non-deduction of TDS on software

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

section 115JB of the Act by: • considering the net profit amount as 'Profit before Tax and Exceptional Items' instead of 'Profit before Tax' • not reducing the amount of unabsorbed depreciation from the book profits • increasing the book profits by the amount of disallowance made u/s. 14A. 13. Levy of the interest u/s. 234B of the Act. 14. Levy

PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3) of 144C requires the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order. In setting out the scope of the DRP to issue directions, sub-section (6) restricts the DRP to consideration of the draft order and the objections filed by the Assessee along with connected evidence, report, records, and enquiries. 9. It is only

ATOS INDIA PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14 (1) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleatos India Private Limited V. Acit – 14(1)(1) Unit No. 1401, 14Th Floor Rom No. 481, 4Th Floor Supremus “E" Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 I Think Techno Campus Kanjurmarg (E), Mumbai - 400042 Pan: Aaaco2461J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Riddi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

depreciation under section 32 of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in taxing provisions for doubtful debts and advances written back during the year amounting to INR 5,36,79,888 even when the Hon'ble DRP had principally agreed that provisions which were disallowed

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer in not examining the following issues has rendered the order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue: (a) Irregular allowance of long term capital loss of Rs.996,75,31,387. (b) Bad debts allowed

SI GROUP-INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT -LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on additional grounds

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Si Group India Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Large Taxpayer Unit 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre No.1 Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Manish Kumar Singh

section 144C(5) of the Act the DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed in the draft assessment order and on receiving the directions of the DRP the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C shall pass an order in confirmity with the directions of the DRP and complete the assessment. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

depreciation on manufacturing contracts and supply/maintenance\ncontracts. In its response, the assessee placed reliance upon the Business\nTransfer Agreements, Valuation Report, and some judicial rulings. The\nAssessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 24/03/2014\npassed under section 143(3) read with section 144C

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

144C(13) of the Act. Thus, the issue relating to deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act, cannot be a subject matter of re-assessment under 10 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 section 147 of the Act, as, such reopening of assessment was for assessing a particular income, which escaped assessment. Pertinently, to justify his action of revising the re-assessment order

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144C(3) r.w.s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.05.2014 is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act, and the same is void ab initio” 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144C(3) r.w.s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.05.2014 is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act, and the same is void ab initio” 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144C(3) r.w.s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.05.2014 is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act, and the same is void ab initio” 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC-46, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144C(3) r.w.s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.05.2014 is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act, and the same is void ab initio” 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144C(3) r.w.s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.05.2014 is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act, and the same is void ab initio” 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144C(3) r.w.s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.05.2014 is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act, and the same is void ab initio” 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144C(3) r.w.s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.05.2014 is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act, and the same is void ab initio” 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144C(3) r.w.s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.05.2014 is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act, and the same is void ab initio” 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that