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

5) … (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years, or of any previous year, relevant to any subsequent assessment year,— (i) Section 32, section 32A, section 33, section 35 and clause

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

5) … (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years, or of any previous year, relevant to any subsequent assessment year,— (i) Section 32, section 32A, section 33, section 35 and clause

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

5) … (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years, or of any previous year, relevant to any subsequent assessment year,— (i) Section 32, section 32A, section 33, section 35 and clause

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)

disallowance only up to the first day of April, 2001, and granting the benefit, of those provisions even in respect of units to which sections 10A and 10B is applicable. The Finance Act, 2003, amended this sub- section with retrospective effect from April 1, 2001, by lifting the embargo in the aforesaid clauses in respect of depreciation and business loss

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)

5. Without prejudice to ground no.4 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO be directed to allow deduction under Section 10A of the Act in respect of addition made to the income of Appellant Company on account of disallowance

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

5. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the Assessing Officer while disallowing assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act in the assessment

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

5, K. Raheja Mind Mumbai-20. Space, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081. PAN No. AACCC 3062 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Nishant Thakkar, Adv. Revenue by : Mr. Salil Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15/06/2023 : Date of pronouncement 17/08/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 16.12.2010 passed

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

5) of Section 80- IA or for that matter akin to sub-section (6) of Section 80-I has not been introduced by the Legislature when it enacted Section 10B. The fact that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward to a subsequent year does not militate against the entitlement of the assessee to set off a loss which is sustained

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

DATTA PRASAD SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

10A, 10AA , 10B, 10BA or under any other provision in Chapter-VIA under the heading, “C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, no deduction shall be allowed to him. Undisputedly, section 80P comes within Chapter-VIA under the heading “C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes”. 6.2 The language used in section 80A(5) is very much clear and unambiguous

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

disallowance of INR 172,94,09,811/- out of deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 10A of the Act. The Appellant filed objections against the Draft Assessment Order, 8. dated 28.03.2013, before DRP. The DRP rejected the objections raised by the Appellant challenging Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 2,72,430/-. DRP also concluded that Assessing Officer was 5

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

5. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that assessee is engaged in the business of software development and trading in hardware/software. 6. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the AO made addition by disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.10A. The AO also made addition

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

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

5)", "Section 80AC", "Section 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

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA and section 80H to 80VV. The section 10B or section 10BA and section 80H to 80VV. The section 10B or section 10BA and section 80H to 80VV. The action of CPC restricting the deduction under section 80JJAAto action of CPC restricting the deduction under section 80JJAAto action of CPC restricting

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

10A of the Act. The facts in impugned issue are that, assessee is engaged in development and export of computer software and not in providing technical services outside India. Assessee submitted copies of Audit Report under section 56F in respect of each of the eligible 26 Capgemini India Private Limited unit, wherein the Chartered Accountants had certified that CG India

UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

disallowance made under section 43B of the Act. This resulted in understatement of income. (4) The Appellant had claimed deduction in respect of amount paid to Prime Minister National relief fund under section 80 G of the Act at the rate of 50% instead of hundred percent which has resulted in overstatement of income by INR 11,501/-. (5

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 cannot be denied on a mere ground of change in ownership. 5 I.T.A. No. 234/Bang/2015 I.T.A. No. 843/Bang/2015 I.T.A. No. 542/Bang/2015 9. a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in denying the claim for depreciation on goodwill under section 32 of the Act in respect

J.P MORGAN SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 J.P. Morgan Services India P. Dcit 8(2) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Prism Tower, Level No.9 To M.K. Rd Vs. 11, Link Rd, Mindspace, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W) Mumbai-400064 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

disallowed by the Act [SEE: page 455 of "The Law and Practice of Income Tax" by Kanga and Palkhivala]. Therefore, schematic interpretation for making the formula in Section 80HHC workable cannot be ruled out. Similarly, purposeful interpretation of Section 80HHC which has undergone so many changes cannot be ruled out, particularly, when those legislative changes indicate that the legislature intended