M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2),, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

153(4) i.e. 9 months in 2014 + 12 months in 2015 + 12 months of 20 16] 10 29/9/2017 DRP passed direction u/s 144C(5) of the Act 11 30/9/2017 Time limit for passing order u/s 144C(5) of the Act [i.e. nine months from the end of the month in which draft order is forwarded to assessee

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.

153 of the Act. Accordingly, the time limit to complete assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act in the instant case expired on 31 March 2016. As on the date of passing draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act i.e. on 29 March 2016, the Ld. AO had already received the order passed

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

153 of the Act. Accordingly, the time limit to complete assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act in the instant case expired on 31 March 2016. As on the date of passing draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act i.e. on 29 March 2016, the Ld. AO had already received the order passed

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

153 of the Act. Accordingly, the time limit to complete assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act in the instant case expired on 31 March 2016. As on the date of passing draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act i.e. on 29 March 2016, the Ld. AO had already received the order passed

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.

153 of the Act. Accordingly, the time limit to complete assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act in the instant case expired on 31 March 2016. As on the date of passing draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act i.e. on 29 March 2016, the Ld. AO had already received the order passed

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the\nassessees are stands allowed

153 taxmann.com 591 (Vishakapatnam)\n(Trib) [Pg 81-103] is being followed, wherein at Paras 22-\n27, it is held that the release of a prohibitory order after a\nperiod of one month from the date of the order is contrary to\nCBDT Circular dated 3-7-2002 [Pg 134-136] which is binding\non the revenue and thus

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

153 of the Act. Accordingly, the time limit to complete assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act in the instant case expired on 31 March 2016. As on the date of passing draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act i.e. on 29 March 2016, the Ld. AO had already received the order passed

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

153 (Bom). He also relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High court in the case of CIT v. Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324(P&H) , the decision of Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwarilal Banshidar (1998) 0229 ITR 229(All.) and decision of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

153 (Bom). He also relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High court in the case of CIT v. Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324(P&H) , the decision of Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwarilal Banshidar (1998) 0229 ITR 229(All.) and decision of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court

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