ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

2. Schedule 1B, 1C & 1D INR 5,57,01,467 3. Agent commission on CIF INR 11,11,082 4. Total of (ii) & (iii) INR 5,68,12,549 USD 12,59,445 & INR ` 5,68,12,549 USD one million two hundred fifty nine thousand four hundred 5. Total payable forty five only And Rupees five crore sixty eight

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPE\RS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS SUCESSOR OF BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 9(1)(vii) and the document submitted by the assesse come to the conclusion that the payment to non-resident were taxable and assesse failed to deduct tax on such remittance, therefore he held that assesse was in default as per provision of Sec.201(1) of the Act and Sec. 201(1A) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 9(1)(vii) and the document submitted by the assesse come to the conclusion that the payment to non-resident were taxable and assesse failed to deduct tax on such remittance, therefore he held that assesse was in default as per provision of Sec.201(1) of the Act and Sec. 201(1A) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 9(1)(vii) and the document submitted by the assesse come to the conclusion that the payment to non-resident were taxable and assesse failed to deduct tax on such remittance, therefore he held that assesse was in default as per provision of Sec.201(1) of the Act and Sec. 201(1A) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

2,77,12,293 Marketing & Advertising Private Limited 242 - 254 Speciality Paper 7,68,16,760 7,68,16,760 1,72,08,14,208 1,79,76,30,968 1,91,50,53,995 Limited Terry Towel 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 8,71,68,075 9,71,68,075 1,90,099,702 Industries Limited

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. CAPAGEMINI CONSULTING INDIA P. LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

CAPGEMINI CONSULTING INIDA P.LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

ITO (3) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. R.K. EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

9. Here it is to be noted that the first proviso and second proviso was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, so it is applicable only for/from AY 2013-14 and not for this AY 2009-10. 10. Next let us refer to the definition of income stated in Section 2(24) of the Act. Section

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

2(22)(e) of the Act do not apply on receipt of preference share application money by Appellant from BTPL; B. Addition of preference share application money received amounting to Rs.90.00,00,OOP/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. 7. erred in not adjudicating the ground on taxability

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of the Act on the entire demand including the demand raised vide the original assessment order dated February 5, 2011, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. Ground No. 5 – Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

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

ITO (IT)- 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

2. In question (a) the revenue contends that the Satellite Space Fees and transponder c Fees and transponder charges paid by the assessee were in the harges paid by the assessee were in the nature of royalty payments. From the perusal of the impugned nature of royalty payments. From the perusal of the impugned nature of royalty payments. From

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).

9 - Held, yes - Whether section 195(2) is not a mere provision to provide information ITO(TDS) so that department can keep track of remittances being made to non-residents outside rather it gets attracted to cases where payment made is a composite payment in which certain proportion of payment has an element of 'income' chargeable

DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RANKIN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

68 as against section 56(2)(viib) which deals with issue of shares. In this regard, in view of the reasons given above, I find that the said implication made by the learned AO is merely based on presumptions and does not lay down the’ clear provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA. The learned

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 9(l)(vi) of the Act. Since the term process is not defined under the DTAA, therefore, by virtue of Article 3(2) of the Indo-US DTAA, the meaning of term process as defined in the Act would apply for this purpose. We say so as a word 'process' is a term of wide import and, accordingly

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICAL LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

9'61(43 of 1961), 53 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 the Central Board of Direct Taxes, hereby directs that the Joint Commissioners of Income Tax or the Joint Directors of Income tax, shall exercise the. powers and functions of the Assessing Officers, in respect of territorial area or persons or classes of persons

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

9'61(43 of 1961), 53 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 the Central Board of Direct Taxes, hereby directs that the Joint Commissioners of Income Tax or the Joint Directors of Income tax, shall exercise the. powers and functions of the Assessing Officers, in respect of territorial area or persons or classes of persons