DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under\nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of\nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income\nchargeable

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under\nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of\nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income\nchargeable

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under\nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of\nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income\nchargeable

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

disallowance on account of Section 40A(3)/40A(3A) as well working out peak negative cash balance. It was submitted that there is no dispute so far as quantum is concerned . Our attention was drawn to annexure 1 and 2 to the assessment order of the A.O wherein the peak negative cash balance has been worked

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

disallowance on account of Section 40A(3)/40A(3A) as well working out peak negative cash balance. It was submitted that there is no dispute so far as quantum is concerned . Our attention was drawn to annexure 1 and 2 to the assessment order of the A.O wherein the peak negative cash balance has been worked

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under\nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of\nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income\nchargeable

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under\nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of\nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income\nchargeable

ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

section 153(4) i.e. 9 months in 2014 + 12 months in 2015 + 12 months of 20 16] 10 29/9/2017 DRP passed direction u/s 144C(5) of the Act 11 30/9/2017 Time limit for passing order u/s 144C(5) of the Act [i.e. nine months from the end of the month in which draft order is forwarded to assessee

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

3) nexus between the exempt income and expenditure disallowed under section 14 A of the act needs to be established and the assessee has disallowed on its own , ₹ 6,996,212 which is computed on a rational basis and therefore the disallowance should be accepted. Assessee ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. on 23/12/2019 without prejudice

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

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenditure 10. The Revenue Department has also filed an appeal against the final assessment vide ITA No. 3016/Mum/2016 and the grounds of appeal are as under:- Sr. Particulars No. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS 1 Ground No. 1: Rejection of comparables Le, Jalan Agencies Limited. TCS e-serve International Limited and Castrol India Limited M/s. Shell India Markets

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenditure 10. The Revenue Department has also filed an appeal against the final assessment vide ITA No. 3016/Mum/2016 and the grounds of appeal are as under:- Sr. Particulars No. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS 1 Ground No. 1: Rejection of comparables Le, Jalan Agencies Limited. TCS e-serve International Limited and Castrol India Limited M/s. Shell India Markets

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.

153 of the Act would also be barred by limitation. For the sake of convenience, the original ground No.2 raised by the assessee is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Re: Validity of the Order: 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) dated 1 November 2019 is barred

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in assessment and which comes

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : \n\n Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) \nof section 143 or this section has been made for the \nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under \nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of \nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income \nchargeable

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : \n\n Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) \nof section 143 or this section has been made for the \nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under \nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of \nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income \nchargeable

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

153. (1) No order of assessment12 shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment one months from

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

153. (1) No order of assessment12 shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment one months from

M/S EDELWISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Edelweiss Rural & Acit Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Cgo Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakcs 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement ___/03/2023 Order

3. Before us the assessee also filed Before us the assessee also filed an additional ground on additional ground on 25/11/22 stating that impugned assessment order is barred by 25/11/22 stating that impugned assessment order is barred by 25/11/22 stating that impugned assessment order is barred by limitation as provided under section 153 of the ed under section 153