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

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

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 purchase 7. Disallowance under section 40(a) due 64,45,907 to non-deduction of TDS of Foreign Parties 4 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos

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

8) of 144C. The scheme of s.144C would thus be wholly violated if the Assessing Officer takes it upon himself to include in the final order of assessment such additions/disallowance/variations that do not form part of the order of draft assessment. 10. Further, we do not agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant to the effect

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

8. Disallowance of FCCB premium. 9. Disallowance of FCCB issue expenses. 3 I.T.A. No. 2877/Mum/2014 Strides Shasun Limited 10. Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. 11. Income received on assignment of commercial contracts taxed as business profits. 12. Adjustment made to 'book profits' computed in terms of section 115JB of the Act by: • considering the net profit amount as 'Profit

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

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

8 Ground No. 33 to 35: Disallowance of Amortized Lease Rentals 9 Ground No. 36 to 38: Alternate disallowance of payment for Business Support Services under Section 40(a) of the Act 10 Ground No. 39 to 40: Disallowance of depreciation claimed on Goodwill arising on merger 11 Ground No. 41 to 42: Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenditure 12 Ground

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

8 Ground No. 33 to 35: Disallowance of Amortized Lease Rentals 9 Ground No. 36 to 38: Alternate disallowance of payment for Business Support Services under Section 40(a) of the Act 10 Ground No. 39 to 40: Disallowance of depreciation claimed on Goodwill arising on merger 11 Ground No. 41 to 42: Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenditure 12 Ground

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

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

section 144C(13) of the Act. In TP adjustment, the addition was made on two issues which are covered in ground nos 4 to 8. The argument is focused primarily on ground-wise which are as follows: - Ground no. 5 : Partial disallowance of depreciation

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

144C(13) of the Act. Post passing of final assessment order, ld. PCIT called for and examined the assessment records and while doing so, he found that in the year under consideration, the assessee has sold certain depreciable assets which has resulted in capital gain. He observed, as per section 50 of the Act, gain derived from sale of depreciable

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 144C(8), does not extend to\npicking up and making an enhancement of income in respect of an item\nin respect of which no variation is proposed in the impugned assessment\norder, and in the impugned assessment order. the \"variation\" proposed\nis with respect to Arm's length price for the sale of electricity only:\n(f) erred

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

8 - Allowance of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation\npertaining to AY 2009-10\nITA No.2458/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n5\n8.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nDCIT and Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing the unabsorbed depreciation of\nRs.17,82,24,085 carried forward and brought forward as per the original

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

depreciation on earlier year directions, building dismissed the objection raised by the assessee. CT adjustment Total 48,57,91,292 41,01,11,399 (B) 8. On the issue of time barring of the assessment order, it has been contended by the Ld. Counsel before us that the ld. TPO 8 M/s. India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. has passed an order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is time barred as per the provision of the Act, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. The respondent craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.” 3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard

DCIT IT 3 3 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRAMARICA ASPF II CYPRUS HOLDING LTD, CTPRUS

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT IT 332 MUMBAI, INCOME TAX vs. PRAMARICA ASPF II CYPRUS HOLDING LTD, CYPRUS

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

8, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned PCIT') has erred in initiating proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Act') by wrongly assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and hence, the order passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of Act is bad in law and void ab-initio. ITA 3327/MUM/2018 Vodafone India Limited

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which\nis time barred as per the provision of the Act, therefore, the impugned\nassessment order is bad in law and required to be quashed.\n2. The respondent craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of\nappeal.\"\n3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard

JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation on other intangible assets under section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 27. The issue arising in ground No. 5, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to addition on account of disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act in respect of payment made to Mr Ashith Kampani