BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

68,30,713 Ground no 2 On the facts and in circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT has erred in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act when the original assessment order has been passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED ('FETSCS')[FEDERAL EXPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH FETSCS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER1,2013],MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

144C(5) of the Act dated 28.12.2015. 2. In this appeal, assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal: “I. Ground on jurisdiction 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in passing the draft assessment order in the name of Federal Express India Private Limited, an entity

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.

3) of the Act on that day. Having said that, the draft assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under the provisions of law is also illegal and void ab initio which deserves to be quashed. 36.It is a well-settled proposition now that a draft order passed in case of an ‗ineligible assessee‘ vitiates the entire exercise of assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38.What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

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.

68 (ii) taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, (iii) dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‘s SLP dismissed by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

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

68,37,05,578 services 2. Intra-group services 10,51,45,309 Sub- total (A) 78,88,50,887 Corporate tax additions 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

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act of INR 7,959,683,862 be deleted. Ground No. 3 - Re-raising of demand which was raised in the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act 2 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

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

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

MACQUIE HOLDINGS B.V. & CO. KG,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144C(1) of the Act. Therefore, the draft assessment order as well as the final assessment order passed in consequence thereof is void ab initio. 6 Maquet Holdings B.V. & Co. KG 7. Further, he submitted, as per section 153(1) of the Act, the limitation to pass the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act expired

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)

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. (iii) 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue’s SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

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)

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. (iii) 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue’s SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144C. The scheme of s.144C would thus be wholly violated if the Assessing Officer takes it upon himself to include in the final order of assessment such additions/disallowance/variations that do not form part of the order of draft assessment. 10. Further, we do not agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant to the effect that since

FIDELITY SALEM STREET TRUST FIDELITY SAI EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), in pursuance of the directions dated 4 December 2024, issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (DRP-1) on the following grounds, each of which is without prejudice to and independent of the others On the facts and circumstances of the case

EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), in pursuance of the directions dated 4 December 2024, issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (DRP-1) on the following grounds, each of which is without prejudice to and independent of the others On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue’s SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

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

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue's SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C