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.

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:] 4.4. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 92CA(3A) of the Act, we find that the time limit prescribed in Section 153 of the Act for completion of assessment is 31/12/2019 for A.Y.2016-17 considering the extended period of one year as per third proviso

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.

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:] 4.5. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 92CA(3A) of the Act, we find that the time limit prescribed in Section 153 of the Act for completion of assessment is 31/12/2019 for A.Y.2016-17 considering the extended period of one year as per third proviso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

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

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. Thus, the issue relating to deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act, cannot be a subject matter of re-assessment under 10 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 section 147 of the Act, as, such reopening of assessment was for assessing a particular income, which escaped assessment. Pertinently, to justify his action of revising

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1492/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor, Tower -3 (Wing C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaacc-0460-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 5 (1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.1576/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2,Mumbai, World Trade Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 005 बनाम Vs. M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ltd. 1018, Maker Chambers –V, 10Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaics-1404-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

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

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1492/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor, Tower -3 (Wing C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaacc-0460-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 5 (1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.1576/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2,Mumbai, World Trade Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 005 बनाम Vs. M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ltd. 1018, Maker Chambers –V, 10Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaics-1404-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

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

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1492/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor, Tower -3 (Wing C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaacc-0460-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 5 (1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.1576/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2,Mumbai, World Trade Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 005 बनाम Vs. M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ltd. 1018, Maker Chambers –V, 10Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaics-1404-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

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

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

3) r.w.s 144C of the Act and hence the period of limitation as given in section 263(2) of the Act ought to be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order and not the reassessment