DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 9(1)(vi) & 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities and filed detailed written submissions distinguishing the appellate order/s passed for the earlier years. 10. We have heard both the parties and gone through the written submissions filed by them

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 9(1)(vi) & 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities and filed detailed written submissions distinguishing the appellate order/s passed for the earlier years. 10. We have heard both the parties and gone through the written submissions filed by them

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT)-1 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 9(1)(vi) & 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities and filed detailed written submissions distinguishing the appellate order/s passed for the earlier years. 10. We have heard both the parties and gone through the written submissions filed by them

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

68,19,755.00 13. 75% 2009-10 16,93,05,845.00 1,05,30,824.00 6.22% 2010-11 6,00,73,432.00 12,01,469.00 2%. The assessee had duly submitted copies of agency agreement/contract and exclusivity agreement pertaining to 4 major overseas agents based in USA & Europe as well copies of ledger account of these agents. The four foreign

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

9 to the revised return of income on page 7 of the Paper Book – I. The AO disallowed these provisions on the basis that the same cannot be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act and the provisions of section 43B of the Act are applicable. 31. Out of the above, the CIT(A) allowed items mentioned

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

68,19,755.00 13. 75% 2009-10 16,93,05,845.00 1,05,30,824.00 6.22% 2010-11 6,00,73,432.00 12,01,469.00 2% I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 The assessee had duly submitted copies of agency agreement/contract and exclusivity agreement pertaining to 4 major overseas agents based in USA & Europe as well copies of ledger account of these agents

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

vii) under the Income-tax Act because same has been separately dealt and defined under section 194J r.w. clause (a) of Explanation thereto which provides separate definition of professional services. 12. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) on both the issues and drew our attention to the various observations

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

vii) under the Income-tax Act because same has been separately dealt and defined under section 194J r.w. clause (a) of Explanation thereto which provides separate definition of professional services. 12. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) on both the issues and drew our attention to the various observations

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

vii) under the Income-tax Act because same has been separately dealt and defined under section 194J r.w. clause (a) of Explanation thereto which provides separate definition of professional services. 12. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) on both the issues and drew our attention to the various observations

SHELL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL BV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 36 (Mum- Tri) • DDIT v. Reliance Industries Limited [2016] 69 taxmann.com 311 (Mum- Tri) • Aspect Software Inc. v. ADIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 36 (Del-Tri) • Allianz SE v. ADIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 62 (Pune

SHELL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL BV,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 36 (Mum- Tri) • DDIT v. Reliance Industries Limited [2016] 69 taxmann.com 311 (Mum- Tri) • Aspect Software Inc. v. ADIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 36 (Del-Tri) • Allianz SE v. ADIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 62 (Pune

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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.” 17. On the other hand, the ld. DR after extensively referring to the various observations and the findings of Assessing Officer submitted that the data processing services which has been provided by the assessee to SCB is nothing but rendering of technical and consultancy services. Under the Cocteau agreement, assessee

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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.” 17. On the other hand, the ld. DR after extensively referring to the various observations and the findings of Assessing Officer submitted that the data processing services which has been provided by the assessee to SCB is nothing but rendering of technical and consultancy services. Under the Cocteau agreement, assessee

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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.” 17. On the other hand, the ld. DR after extensively referring to the various observations and the findings of Assessing Officer submitted that the data processing services which has been provided by the assessee to SCB is nothing but rendering of technical and consultancy services. Under the Cocteau agreement, assessee

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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.” 17. On the other hand, the ld. DR after extensively referring to the various observations and the findings of Assessing Officer submitted that the data processing services which has been provided by the assessee to SCB is nothing but rendering of technical and consultancy services. Under the Cocteau agreement, assessee

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

vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In doing so, the Learned AO and the DRP disregarded the Contract for Provision of Computing Services entered into between the Appellant and Standard Chartered Bank, India ('SCB India') for the services rendered by the Appellant to SCB India. The Appellant humbly prays that the aforesaid receipts should not be taxed