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

Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders are thus, held to be barred by limitation." 15. Thus, the entire TPO order is barred by limitation, which deserves to be quashed. 16. He further submitted that in absence of TPO order, i.e., if it is barred by limitation, then the entire proceedings initiated

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

Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders are thus, held to be barred by limitation." 15. Thus, the entire TPO order is barred by limitation, which deserves to be quashed. 16. He further submitted that in absence of TPO order, i.e., if it is barred by limitation, then the entire proceedings initiated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

b) Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 269T renders the person liable for penalty under Section 271E; and (c) Section 273B provides that no penalty under Section 271E shall be imposed if reasonable cause is shown by the concerned person for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

b) Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 269T renders the person liable for penalty under Section 271E; and (c) Section 273B provides that no penalty under Section 271E shall be imposed if reasonable cause is shown by the concerned person for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

b) Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 269T renders the person liable for penalty under Section 271E; and (c) Section 273B provides that no penalty under Section 271E shall be imposed if reasonable cause is shown by the concerned person for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

b) Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 269T renders the person liable for penalty under Section 271E; and (c) Section 273B provides that no penalty under Section 271E shall be imposed if reasonable cause is shown by the concerned person for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

b) Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 269T renders the person liable for penalty under Section 271E; and (c) Section 273B provides that no penalty under Section 271E shall be imposed if reasonable cause is shown by the concerned person for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

b) Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 269T renders the person liable for penalty under Section 271E; and (c) Section 273B provides that no penalty under Section 271E shall be imposed if reasonable cause is shown by the concerned person for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

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)

246A and section 253 of the Act. However, no amendment is made in section 263 of the Act as a consequence of insertion of section 144C of the Act to deem such orders being capable of being revised. Therefore, the memorandum, circular, etc. support the Assessee's stand that once the Assessing Officer passes an order in accordance with

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

b) These entries are with sister concerns and associates. The view in the penalty order that Durgeshwari is an independent concern is incorrect because penalty order itself starts with the sentence that “Assesee has taken from sister concerns”. c) It has been proved before the Addl. CIT and CIT (A) that there is absolutely no cash involved and the source

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

b) These entries are with sister concerns and associates. The view in the penalty order that Durgeshwari is an independent concern is incorrect because penalty order itself starts with the sentence that “Assesee has taken from sister concerns”. c) It has been proved before the Addl. CIT and CIT (A) that there is absolutely no cash involved and the source

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

b) These entries are with sister concerns and associates. The view in the penalty order that Durgeshwari is an independent concern is incorrect because penalty order itself starts with the sentence that “Assesee has taken from sister concerns”. c) It has been proved before the Addl. CIT and CIT (A) that there is absolutely no cash involved and the source

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

b) These entries are with sister concerns and associates. The view in the penalty order that Durgeshwari is an independent concern is incorrect because penalty order itself starts with the sentence that “Assesee has taken from sister concerns”. c) It has been proved before the Addl. CIT and CIT (A) that there is absolutely no cash involved and the source

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

Transfer Pricing order passed by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, the draft assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act; and, the validity of the consequent final assessment order based on the draft assessment order. While the stand of the assessee is that a mistake in passing of the draft assessment

DDIT (IT) 4(2),MUMBAI vs. ABU DHABI SHIP BLDG PJSC, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer or assign the contract or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. However such consent shall not relieve the contractor from any obligation, duty or responsibility under the contract." Further as per the article 25 (page no.26) of the contract which speaks about preference to local companies it is stated; "The contractor agrees to give priority and preference

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Income Tax-3(1)(1) Godrej It Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020

b) Woodward India Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 916/Del/2015) (Para 5.3-5.5 Pg. 1633- 1635 of Compilation). Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, we are of the Dow Agrosciences India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai – A.Y 2014-15 25 considered view that in light of the aforesaid peculiar facts of the case, the benchmarking

SHRI MOHAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

transfer of shares in his return of income for assessment. As such income to the tune of Rs. 2,02,10,000 (20,41,00,000 sale price-1,00,000 cost price) has thus escaped assessment for the asst. yr. 2006-07." In view of the above, we reject the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that no incriminating

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

246A and section 253 of the Act. That however, no amendment is made in section 263 of the Act as a consequence of insertion of section 144C of the Act to deem such orders being capable of being revised. That therefore, the memorandum, circular, etc. support the Assessee's stand that once the Assessing Officer passes an order in accordance

BIRLA CARBON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

246A and section 253 of the Act. That however, no amendment is made in section 263 of the Act as a consequence of insertion of section 144C of the Act to deem such orders being capable of being revised. That therefore, the memorandum, circular, etc. support the Assessee's stand that once the Assessing Officer passes an order in accordance