ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 of the Act and charging tax on the same as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary.” 20. The issue arising in ground no. 1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the deletion of disallowance made

JUST DIAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 of the Act and charging tax on the same as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary.” 20. The issue arising in ground no. 1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the deletion of disallowance made

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 of the Act and charging tax on the same as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary.” 20. The issue arising in ground no. 1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the deletion of disallowance made

LUCENT TECHNOLGIES GRL LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

68 taxmann.com97); Black Duck Software Inc. (86 taxmann.com 62); I.T.C. Ltd. (79 taxmann. com 206), the Tribunal has considered the term ‘process’ while deciding the issue of software is not royalty. We also find that in the case of AVEVA Information Technology India (P.) Ltd. (85taxmann.com 14), the Tribunal had considered the argument that software was Invention/Patent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMRUDDHI CEMENT LIMITED (SINCE AMALGAMATED INTO M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a company at a free determined price. In an ESOP

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMRUDDHI CEMENT LIMITED (SINCE AMALGAMATED INTO M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a company at a free determined price. In an ESOP

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

68,955 Other long-term liabilities 401,84,52,130 Long-term provisions 1052,12,25,604 Sundry Creditors 28,51,89,092 Other current liabilities 22057,45,79,245 Short-term provisions 222,57,17,135 Total 36776,93,02,756 6.7. However, the Assessing Officer computed the interest free own AYs 2018-19 & 2019-2020 funds available with

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(3)(2),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean\noption given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the cсоmраnу,\nअधिकत\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TROU\nPage 8\nITA No. 5721/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2020-21\nStrides Pharma Science Limited\nwhich gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or\nsubscribe

RAMESH KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleramesh Kumar Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir, 1(2) Flat No. 702, 7Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg, 7Th 13A, Kao Siddhi Floor, Mumbai – 20. Vinayak Bldg, Adeshar Dada St, Cp Tank Road, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapj5347C Appellant .. Respondent

15a[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner before the date of search; or Ramesh Kumar Jain, Mumbai (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found

DEEPAK C. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT-17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

15A, Dalamal Apartment 9th Floor, Cuffe Parade ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 005 PAN – AABPD7267R v/s Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–17(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jotwani Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari Date of Hearing – 12.07.2019 Date of Order – 26.07.2019 O R D E R PER BENCH Captioned appeals have been filed by the same assessee challenging three

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68,99,302/-made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arm's Length Price (ALP) pursuant to order Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), us 92CA

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68,99,302/-made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arm's Length Price (ALP) pursuant to order Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), us 92CA

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68,99,302/-made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arm's Length Price (ALP) pursuant to order Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), us 92CA

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68,99,302/-made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arm's Length Price (ALP) pursuant to order Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), us 92CA

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68,99,302/-made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arm's Length Price (ALP) pursuant to order Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), us 92CA

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68,99,302/-made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arm's Length Price (ALP) pursuant to order Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), us 92CA

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68,99,302/-made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arm's Length Price (ALP) pursuant to order Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), us 92CA

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68,99,302/-made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arm's Length Price (ALP) pursuant to order Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), us 92CA