ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MOBIAPPS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(2)(4), M/S Mobiapps India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.542, 5Th Floor, 7/10, Borawala Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaccm3613L

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , KALYAN vs. M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

2) of section 33 and sub-section (4) of section 35 of the Act or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36 shall not be applicable in relation to any such allowance or deduction. Similarly, no loss as referred to in sub-section (1) or in section 72 or sub-section

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Amarjit Singhwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Income Tax- 10(2) Complex, Mumbai Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw2598L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

2 M/s. WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd., “The following Grounds of Appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one another: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in proposing and the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') further erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction under Section 10A

LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

disallowance of INR 11,73,66,586/- was warranted out of deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 10A of the Act in view of the following: - The communication charges and other expenditure incurred in foreign currency were required to be excluded from the export turnover in view of provisions contend in Explanation 2

AURO GOLD JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance out of deduction claimed under section 10A of the Act was on a presumptive/estimate basis. From the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is very much clear that the allegation of the Assessing Officer that no manufacturing activity was carried on by the assessee was found to be baseless as learned Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically stated that the assessee

BA CONTINUUM INDIA P.LTD ( SINCE MERGED WOTJ BA COTINUUM SOLUTIONS P. LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ba Continuum India Private Ito, Ward 9(1)(2), Limited (Since Merged With Ba Room No. 226, Vs. Continuum Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Building No. 5, K. Raheja Mind Mumbai-20. Space, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081. Pan No. Aaccc 3062 D Appellant Respondent

section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on the standalone BA Continuum India Pvt. Ltd. 2 business profits of the year before adjustment of the business profits of the year before adjustment of the business profits of the year before adjustment of the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed brought forward business losses and unabsorbed brought forward business

ACIT - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2)(2) Sonata Software Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.348, 3Rd Floor 208, T.V. Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, M.K Road Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Worli, Mumbai 400 030 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcs8459D याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 21/03/2018

2. The assessee is aggrieved on two grounds. The first ground relates to the denial of deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of eight separate undertakings being considered as one undertaking and not separate undertaking. The second ground relates to the disallowance

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

10A [, section 10AA], clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB [, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-1 A, section 80-1B, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, [section 115JB, [section 115JC] or section 115VW] or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10A has been claimed by the Appellant on account of losses in such units. 24. Without prejudice to Ground No 16, the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in law and in fact in computing profits to be disallowed as deduction under Section 1OA of the Act at 15% of the IPSA revenues (i.e. cost + mark-up) instead

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance and additions made under other corporate heads. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel Shri M P Lohia submitted that, so far as ground no. 1 is concerned, the same is general in nature and ground no. 2, 3, 4 and 9 are not pressed accordingly, these grounds are treated as dismissed being not pressed. Effective 2 Capgemini India

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

10A though that rule was not quoted in the demand doing so the Supreme Court upheld the basic principle of legislative intent and purpose.” 6.7. Again in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO AIR 1981 SC 1922, while examining the true meaning of section 52(2), which enabled the revenue to charge tax on the capital gains deemed

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2)(a) of India-USA DTAA, similar clause also appear in various other tax treaties concluded by the Government of India with foreign countries from which the assessee has received income under section 10A / 10AA of the Act till assessment year 2009-10, such as, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Oman, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan. In this context, he drew

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2)(a) of India-USA DTAA, similar clause also appear in various other tax treaties concluded by the Government of India with foreign countries from which the assessee has received income under section 10A / 10AA of the Act till assessment year 2009-10, such as, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Oman, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan. In this context, he drew

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. CELETRONIX INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) बनधम/ Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Jabil Circuit (I) Pvt.Ltd., Tax -8(1), Vs. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.103, Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Road No.12, Opp Tunga Paradise, Aayaker Bhavan, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact7548K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.81/Mum/2010 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

disallowances including rejection of claim u/s 10A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee 4 CO No.81/M/2010 preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 10A by observing as under: "6.1 I have examined the submissions and the arguments put forth by the appellant 6.1.1 Deletion

BRITLECONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowing the claim of deduction under section 10 of the Act. For this assessee has raised the following 6 grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, whether the learned CIT(A) has jurisdiction of enhancement by holding that appellant had not done any manufacturing activity in software development in the background fact

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

2 (45) of the IT Act and it means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Income-tax Act,1961. 2.11. In computing the total income of the assessee both profits as well as losses will have to be taken into consideration. Section 80-AB is relevant. It reads

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S THOMSON REUTERS INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by revenue in IT(TP)

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

10A of the Act for disallowance considered under section 40(a)(i) / 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. That the learned AO erred in consequently levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 12. That the learned AO erred levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 13. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter