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

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 35(2AB) then, deduction available\nto the extent of 100% of revenue and capital expenditure must be\nallowed under section 35(a)(i) and 35(1)(iv) of the Act respectively.\nAssessee provided working for the quantum of deduction for this\nalternative claim so as to restrict it to Rs.2,60,79,526/- instead

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

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. Cit, 501, 5Th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration Is Whether The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, Can Be Subjected To Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act. For Deciding This Issue, Few Necessary Facts Are Required To Be Considered. The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Providing Information Technology (It)/Information Technology Enabled Service (Ites) To Its Group Companies As Well As Consulting Services To Its Clients. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed

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

DCIT-4(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. IIFL FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1), Room No.640, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400020 ............... Appellant v/s IIFL Finance Ltd., IIFL House Sun Infotech Park Road No.16V B-23, MIDC Thane Wangle Estate, Thane – 400604, ……………… Respondent Maharashtra PAN : AABCI0745G Assessee by : Shri Pritesh Mehta Revenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 02/04/2025 Date of Order - 03/04/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI vs. IIFL FINANCE LTD, THANE, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1), Room No.640, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400020 ............... Appellant v/s IIFL Finance Ltd., IIFL House Sun Infotech Park Road No.16V B-23, MIDC Thane Wangle Estate, Thane – 400604, ……………… Respondent Maharashtra PAN : AABCI0745G Assessee by : Shri Pritesh Mehta Revenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 02/04/2025 Date of Order - 03/04/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmondelez India Foods Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Mumbai- Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, 8 Tower-3 (Wing C), One 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar International Cente Bhavan, Maharshi (Formerly Indiabulls Finance Karve Road, Mumbai- Centre) Parel, Mumbai- 400020 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc0460H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakker & Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Pcit, Mumbai-8 (‘The Ld. Pcit’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

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 1440 Ef the Act to deem such orders being capable of being revised. That therefore, the memorandum, Circular, etc. support the Astesser's stand that once the Assessing Officer passes an order in acreedente

DANISH SHEIKH,USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INTL TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

transfer of the jurisdiction. GROUND NO 10 REJECTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE This ground is not pressed as the evidences furnished to the DRP were partially considered by DRP and importantly the evidences furnished before the DRP are not the Additional evidence within the meaning of the term under Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules which have limited application

VALUKKO INFRASTRUSTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 11(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

transfer of the jurisdiction. GROUND NO 10 REJECTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE This ground is not pressed as the evidences furnished to the DRP were partially considered by DRP and importantly the evidences furnished before the DRP are not the Additional evidence within the meaning of the term under Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules which have limited application

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

246A(1)(d). Now, where an appeal is filed before CIT(A) and the case is decided in favour of the assessee, there is no tax effect involved in this case. If DR's version is 17 M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd.,(As successor to Spice Communications Ltd.) to be accepted, the department cannot file an appeal before ITAT even where