ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT)-1 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 9(1)(vi), the revenue went further to hold that, since assessee has provided technical, managerial and consultancy services to SCB, therefore, it also falls in the nature of 'FTS' and for coming to this conclusion, certain clauses in the Cocteau agreement has been referred to. 19. First of all, we will deal with the issue whether the said

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 9(1)(vi), the revenue went further to hold that, since assessee has provided technical, managerial and consultancy services to SCB, therefore, it also falls in the nature of 'FTS' and for coming to this conclusion, certain clauses in the Cocteau agreement has been referred to. 19. First of all, we will deal with the issue whether the said

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 9(1)(vi), the revenue went further to hold that, since assessee has provided technical, managerial and consultancy services to SCB, therefore, it also falls in the nature of 'FTS' and for coming to this conclusion, certain clauses in the Cocteau agreement has been referred to. 19. First of all, we will deal with the issue whether the said

SHELL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL BV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

House, Ballard Estate, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi Road, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 011 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAICS9091A Assessee by : Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue by : Samuel Darse, DR Date of hearing: 16 -11-2017 Date of pronouncement : 16-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These two appeals by the Assessee are arising

SHELL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL BV,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

House, Ballard Estate, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi Road, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 011 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAICS9091A Assessee by : Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue by : Samuel Darse, DR Date of hearing: 16 -11-2017 Date of pronouncement : 16-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These two appeals by the Assessee are arising

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

property in goods as well as the payment, were carried on outside the Indian soil, the transaction could not have been taxed in India. (3) The principle of apportionment, wherein the territorial jurisdiction of a particular state determines its capacity to tax an event, has to be followed. (4) The fact that the contract was signed in India

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, PAN: AABCA0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 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 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

house / real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section 9(1

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

House Hunghom, Kowloon Ballard Pier Hongkong Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai Address: M/s. Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd., C/o. DSK Legal 4th Floor, Express Towers Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Deputy Director of Vs. M/s. Satellite Television Asian Income-Tax (International Region Ltd., Taxation)-2(1) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

house / real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section 9(1

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 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. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

v) This is also borne out by the phraseology of the charging sections for all other heads of income. Thus, i. in case of the head "income from house property", the charging section (s.22) mentions that 'the annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

section 132(4) of the IT Act, he IT Act, this amount of jewellery is offered to this amount of jewellery is offered to tax. Smt. Suman Gupta ITA Nos. 3860 & 3859/M/2018 7.2. The submission of the assessee is considered but not 7.2. The submission of the assessee is considered but not 7.2. The submission of the assessee is considered

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property and allocation of such expenses has not been made resulting into income escaping assessment. 14. It is clear from the record that assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years since notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-3-2012. If the assessment has to be reopened beyond four years, then there must be a failure

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property and allocation of such expenses has not been made resulting into income escaping assessment. 14. It is clear from the record that assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years since notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-3-2012. If the assessment has to be reopened beyond four years, then there must be a failure