TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, 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.3 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.

reassessments- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - (a) Two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, or (b) One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating

GAMMON INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessments- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - Two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, or One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessments- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - Two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, or One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment

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

144C(1) of the Act, much less in the name of FEIPL. Therefore, the draft assessment order passed in the present case in the name of erstwhile FEIPL is invalid in the eyes of law.” 22 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. D E C I S I O N 22. We have heard the rival submissions

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(1) of the Act, much less in the name of FEIPL. Therefore, the draft assessment order passed in the present case in the name of erstwhile FEIPL is invalid in the eyes of law.” D E C I S I O N 22.We have heard the rival submissions on the aforesaid legal issue as raised in additional grounds

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

144C(1) of the Act, much less in the name of FEIPL. Therefore, the draft assessment order passed in the present case in the name of erstwhile FEIPL is invalid in the eyes of law.” D E C I S I O N 22. We have heard the rival submissions on the aforesaid legal issue as raised in additional grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. erred in filing appeals without complying with the regulations and with defect and filed multiple appeals with the same grounds as raised for the present appeal, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings and orders were quashed.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "143(3)", "68", "142(1)", "143(2)", "144C

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

144C(1). After receiving the draft assessment order, assessee filed objection before the ld. DRP and the ld. DRP has disposed of the objections vide directions dated 29/12/2015 and finally the assessment order has been passed vide order dated 26/02/2016. 17. The period of limitation for making the assessment order as per Section 153(3) was 31/03/2014, i.e., 24 months

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

144C(1). After receiving the draft assessment order, assessee filed objection before the ld. DRP and the ld. DRP has disposed of the objections vide directions dated 29/12/2015 and finally the assessment order has been passed vide order dated 26/02/2016. 17. The period of limitation for making the assessment order as per Section 153(3) was 31/03/2014, i.e., 24 months

ATOS INDIA PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14 (1) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleatos India Private Limited V. Acit – 14(1)(1) Unit No. 1401, 14Th Floor Rom No. 481, 4Th Floor Supremus “E" Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 I Think Techno Campus Kanjurmarg (E), Mumbai - 400042 Pan: Aaaco2461J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Riddi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

144C(13) of the Act passed by NeAC pursuant to invalid directions passed by the DRP, is invalid, thus making the final assessment order bad in law, null and void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that assessee presses the Ground Nos. 11, 12 and 13 and the other grounds

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

1)(b). The Tribunal noted that the TOLA provided relaxation but did not extend the life of the old regime in a manner that would validate these notices. Furthermore, for AY 2016-17, the required approval from the specified authority under Section 151 of the amended law was not obtained.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "144C

JAGUAR LAND ROVER INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT./DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(1) proposing to assess the total income of Rs.71,24,38,607/-. The additions proposed by the ld. AO were as under:- Sr.No. Particulars Amount (INR) Loss as per return of income (49,79,73,607) Add: Additions u/s 92CA(3) as per TP Order: 1. Adjustment in relation to 97,86,00,000 transaction of purchase of vehicle

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GUPSHUP TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

144C(3) of the Act made a disallowance of Rs.46,09,170/- under section 14A of the Act, besides the TP adjustment. Aggrieved by the said order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal vide order dated 05.03.2024. The revenue is in appeal against the order

PRAFUL ARJUN RANE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), for Assessment Year 2015-16. Praful Arjun Rane AY 2015-16 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITO Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), Mumbai erred

DEVANAND AMARNATH PARKAR,JOGESHWARI EAST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(4)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC, BANDRA EAST

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

144C(3) being\nbad in law.\n3. Since the impugned notice u/s. 148 was issued under the\nerstwhile regime of re-assessment as provided u/s.148 r.w.s. 147 which\nhas undergone total revamp by the Finance Act, 2021, the amendments\nbrought in by the Finance Act 2021 led to several jurisdictional issues\nin respect of reassessment proceeding for which the matter

DEEPALI KIRAN POTNIS,KALYAN vs. ITO. INT. TAX, WARD-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

144C by the Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 1-4-2016. (14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. WORLD SPORTS (INDIA) P . LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed and departments appeal stands dismissed

reassessments- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - (a) Two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, or (b) One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating

ELSIE HUBALD,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

144C(13) of the IT Act is invalid and bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in rejecting the objections raised against the proposed addition of Rs.43,67,491/- u/s 69 of the act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case