VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

ia) of the Act. Since the disallowance on this issue has already\nbeen deleted in assessee's appeal, being ITA No.671/Ahd/2015, these\ngrounds raised by the Revenue have become academic, and therefore, are\ndismissed.\n59.\nThe issue arising in Ground No.9, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains\nto the deletion of the addition on account of receipts from prepaid services

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)

disallowances and allowances, arrived at the total business income at Rs.86.07 lakhs. A set off was effected of the brought forward business loss of AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05 upon which the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that there was nil income which would qualify for deduction under Section 10A. The CIT (A) held that the Assessing

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

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

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

ia) – Ground 7  Allowing foreign tax credit in respect of income pertaining to section 10A/10AA eligible units in India – Ground 8  Restricting the TP adjustment made on account of provision of softwares and consultancy services by relying on CIT(A)‟s order in assessee‟s case – Ground 9  Provision of performance guarantee and lease guarantee Ground 10  Deleting the adjustment

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

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

ia) – Ground 7  Allowing foreign tax credit in respect of income pertaining to section 10A/10AA eligible units in India – Ground 8  Restricting the TP adjustment made on account of provision of softwares and consultancy services by relying on CIT(A)‟s order in assessee‟s case – Ground 9  Provision of performance guarantee and lease guarantee Ground 10  Deleting the adjustment

SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

10A, section 12A, section 32AB, section 33AB, section 33ABA, section 35D, section 35E, section 44AB, section 44DA, section 50B, section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80JJAA, section 92F, section 115JB, section 115JC and section 115W of the Act are proposed to be amended accordingly. 7 AY 2022-23 Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. Further, the due date for filing return

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

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

10A(2) have to be complied with. It is pertinent to mention here that in International Stones India (P.) Ltd. case (supra), a division bench of this court has held that a narrow and pedantic approach cannot be applied in construing the words “bv an undertaking” and restricting the benefit under section 10B of the Act only in respect

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

IA of the Act by treating ‘eligible business’ as the ‘only source of income’.” 25 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 21. We notice that sub-section (3) of section 80HHE which deals with the manner of computation of eligible deduction states that for the purpose of deduction “Profits derived from the business” shall be considered and that sub section

SUREPREP (INDIA)P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s.10A of the Act on the excess amount invoking the provisions of section 10A(7) of the Act. 8. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 10A(7) and Section 80IA(8) & (10). The same are extracted herein under: Section 10A(7): “(7) The provisions of sub-section

SUREPREP (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s.10A of the Act on the excess amount invoking the provisions of section 10A(7) of the Act. 8. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 10A(7) and Section 80IA(8) & (10). The same are extracted herein under: Section 10A(7): “(7) The provisions of sub-section

SUREPREP (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s.10A of the Act on the excess amount invoking the provisions of section 10A(7) of the Act. 8. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 10A(7) and Section 80IA(8) & (10). The same are extracted herein under: Section 10A(7): “(7) The provisions of sub-section

MOUNT MARY NAGARI CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

10A", "Section 10AA", "Section 10B", "Section 10BA", "Section 80-IA", "Section 80-IAB", "Section 80-IB", "Section 80-IC", "Section 80-ID", "Section 80-IE", "Section 80P(2)(d)" ], "issues": "Whether the claim for deduction under Section 80P can be disallowed

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

10A. Furthermore, from the perusal of the details of utilization of the ICD placed by MMPL in MIDL as provided in Annexure 108 it can be seen that the entire ICD amount has been utilized by MIDL for retirement of the trade dues of the MMPL. No part of the ICD has been diverted, utilized or accrued to the ultimate

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AJJAY AGARWAL (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.4295/Mum/2023 of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowances taking up frivolous issues. 54. we therefore, hold that the report of DI (Inv) has to be ignored as being illegal. 55. This also become infructuous, because, we have in any case based our decision on the facts emerging from the orders of the revenue authorities and other evidences, had written submissions before the CIT (A) cited case laws

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) would not arise Held, yes\n[Para 10] [In favour of assessee]\nIN THE\nITAT\nMUMBAI\nBENCH\n'B'\nNeo\nSports\nBroadcast (P.)\nLtd.\nIT APPEAL NOS.\n4010 & 4011\n(MUM.) OF 2014\n[ASSESSMENT\nYEARS 2010-11\nAND 2011-12]\nSection 194A, read with section 263, of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction

M/S THOMSON REUTERS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

2) of the Act.\nc) That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in not relying on\nCircular No. 1, dated January 17, 2013 which has clarified that slump\nsale would not result into any splitting or reconstruction of existing\nbusiness and the claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act cannot\nbe denied on a mere ground

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S THOMSON CORPORATION (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

2) of the Act.\nc) That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in not relying on\nCircular No. 1, dated January 17, 2013 which has clarified that slump\nsale would not result into any splitting or reconstruction of existing\nbusiness and the claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act cannot\nbe denied on a mere ground

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) would not arise Held, yes\n[Para 10] [In favour of assessee]\n\nIN THE ITAT | Section 194A, read with section 263, of\nMUMBAI\n'B'\nBENCH | the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of\nNeo\nSports | tax at source - Interest other than\nBroadcast (P.) | interest on securities (Reimbursement of\nLtd.\ncommission to holding company

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

10A…” 49. Thus, there is no dispute that the deduction under section 80IA(1) r.w.s. 80IA(4) is available to an undertaking or an enterprise and not to the owner. Having said that, it is necessary to examine whether introduction of sub-section (12) in section 80IA had any implications in terms of the said understanding. 50. Sub-section