ITO(IT)1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATOS WORLDWIDE INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6424/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिाम/ Ito(It)1(1)(2) Atos Worldwide India Pvt. R.No. 113, First Floor, Ltd. Scindia House, N.M. Road, 701, Interface-11, V. Ballard Estate, New Link Road, Mumbai- 400038 Malad(W), Mumbai-400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace2403J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

115A read with section 195 of I.T.Act,1961 and Finance Act, 2013/2014 shall be applied in respect of the balance non-residents and tax payable plus interest under section 201(IA) of LT.Act,1961 shall be worked out accordingly”. 5. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 4-07-2016 passed by learned CIT(A) , the Revenue has come

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal as filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1464/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Atos Information Technology Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Hk Limited, C/O Atos India Income Tax-(International V. Pvt. Ltd.,Plant No. 5, Taxation) – 1(1)(2), Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Scindia House, Ltd., Pirojshanagar, Lbs Mumbai. Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400 097. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aakcs8720L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

115A of the Act. 1.3 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant, the Learned AO has erred in taxing income on gross receipts instead of net receipts received by the Appellant (i.e. after deducting the expenses attributable

ABU DHABI COMMERCIAL BANK PJSC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc Dcit (International Taxation)- Wework India Management Private 1(1)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No. 517, Limited Vs. 2Nd Floor, Express Towers, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ranath Goenka Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

section 115A(1)(a)(iiaa) r.w.s. 194LC of the Act, the interest income is subject to concessional tax rate of 5% with applicable surcharge and cess. He submitted, while negating assessee’s claim and holding that the interest income would be subject to tax @ 20% u/s. 115A(1)(a)(ii), the DRP has completely overlooked the press release dated

SEADRILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

115A or section 293A apply\nfor the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in\nthose sections.\n(2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :—\n(a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee or to\nany person

ATOS INFORMATON TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

115A of the Act. 1.3 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant, the learned AO has erred in taxing income on gross receipts instead of net receipts received by the Appellant (i.e. after deducting the expenses attributable

ATOS INFORMATON TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

115A of the Act. 1.3 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant, the learned AO has erred in taxing income on gross receipts instead of net receipts received by the Appellant (i.e. after deducting the expenses attributable

ATOS INFORMATON TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

115A of the Act. 1.3 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant, the learned AO has erred in taxing income on gross receipts instead of net receipts received by the Appellant (i.e. after deducting the expenses attributable

ATOS INFORMATON TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

115A of the Act. 1.3 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant, the learned AO has erred in taxing income on gross receipts instead of net receipts received by the Appellant (i.e. after deducting the expenses attributable

CMA CGM SA ,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMM OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONA)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1820/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बिधम/ Cma Cgm Sa Dcit, (International C/O Cma Cgm Agencies Taxation) Circle-2(1)(1) Vs. Room No. 1713, 17Th (India) Pvt. Ltd. One International Center, Floor, Air India Building, Tower 3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Nariman Point, Mumbai- Bapat Marg, Elphinstone 400021. Road West, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc9048G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Poojari/Jasmin Amalsadvala Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Dated 19/05/2021, Passed Under Section 143(3) R/W Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), Pursuant To The Directions Dated 12/05/2021, Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. Drp”) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. In This Appeal, Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “General 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Inr 46,94,25,922/- As Against Revised Income Of Inr 52,35,195/- As Per Revised Computation Submitted By The Appellant During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings;

115A of the Act) in the return of income, it does not automatically constitute income chargeable to tax in India; 20. erred in not following the decision of Hon’ble Pune Tribunal in the case of Appellant’s Indian Agency company (through whom Appellant has received income), CCAI (ITA No.2314/PUN/2017 dated 2 January 2020) while adjudicating the similar payment

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

115A of the Act. The assessee further submitted that GSSPL‟s new campus is being constructed by a third-party developer in Bangalore. While the developer is Goldman Sachs & Co. ITA no.401/Mum./2018 ITA no.7490/Mum./2018 ITA no.6005/Mum./2019 ITA no.1264/Mum./2021 responsible for the construction of the building, the campus is being built based on the design/inputs provided

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

115A of the Act. The assessee further submitted that GSSPL‟s new campus is being constructed by a third-party developer in Bangalore. While the developer is Goldman Sachs & Co. ITA no.401/Mum./2018 ITA no.7490/Mum./2018 ITA no.6005/Mum./2019 ITA no.1264/Mum./2021 responsible for the construction of the building, the campus is being built based on the design/inputs provided

GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

115A of the Act. The assessee further submitted that GSSPL‟s new campus is being constructed by a third-party developer in Bangalore. While the developer is Goldman Sachs & Co. ITA no.401/Mum./2018 ITA no.7490/Mum./2018 ITA no.6005/Mum./2019 ITA no.1264/Mum./2021 responsible for the construction of the building, the campus is being built based on the design/inputs provided

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

115A of the Act. The assessee further submitted that GSSPL‟s new campus is being constructed by a third-party developer in Bangalore. While the developer is Goldman Sachs & Co. ITA no.401/Mum./2018 ITA no.7490/Mum./2018 ITA no.6005/Mum./2019 ITA no.1264/Mum./2021 responsible for the construction of the building, the campus is being built based on the design/inputs provided

WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

115A of the Act. 9. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in not categorically stating in the final order that the reassessment proceedings in case of the Appellant have been concluded on a 'protective basis' pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP 10. Based on the facts

DCIT IT 332 MUMBAI, INCOME TAX vs. PRAMARICA ASPF II CYPRUS HOLDING LTD, CYPRUS

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

115A(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. It is relevant to mention here that the AO for the purpose of coming to the said conclusion has examined the various documentary evidences submitted by the assessee including the ownership, the constitution of the Board, number of employees working in Cyprus office, etc. In the first round of appellate proceedings

DCIT IT 3 3 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRAMARICA ASPF II CYPRUS HOLDING LTD, CTPRUS

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

115A(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. It is relevant to mention here that the AO for the purpose of coming to the said conclusion has examined the various documentary evidences submitted by the assessee including the ownership, the constitution of the Board, number of employees working in Cyprus office, etc. In the first round of appellate proceedings

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

115A of the Act. 1.3 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant, the Learned AO has erred in taxing income on gross receipts instead of net receipts received by the Appellant, (i.e. after deducting the expenses attributable

ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN MAURITIUS CO (LIQUIDATED)),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,174 62,83,312 Short-term capital losses other than those covered Nil under section 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Short-term capital losses covered under section (37,37,11,044) 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Net Short-term capital gains (2,49,42,869) 62,83,312 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed