CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

C-10, 7th Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 ……………. Respondent & ITA No. 5940/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 216-A, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 …………… Appellant Concentrix Services India Private Vs Limited, [Formerly known as Minacs Private Limited, Minacs

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

C-10, 7th Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 ……………. Respondent & ITA No. 5940/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 216-A, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 …………… Appellant Concentrix Services India Private Vs Limited, [Formerly known as Minacs Private Limited, Minacs

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

c are of the considered opinion that this spread over as onsidered opinion that this spread over as computed by the assessee was undisputed, quite fair and computed by the assessee was undisputed, quite fair and computed by the assessee was undisputed, quite fair and reasonable and the same was to be accepted. Accordingly, we reasonable and the same

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section

TRENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T.-2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer of land and building forming part of industrial undertaking; when invested in setting up another industrial undertaking. The assessee had an ice factory; the land and buildings of which were acquired by the Government. The consideration was treated as long term capital gains as against which, the assessee claimed exemption 31 ITA NO.5775/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2007-08) & Other 12 files

M/S. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

35D which do not contain any such provision in respect of sale of unit otherwise than amalgamation/demerger. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding that to determine standard rent of property under the Bombay Rent Control Act the reasonable rate of return should be @ 12% of market value of land and investment in building as against

RAYMOND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. -2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

35D which do not contain any such provision in respect of sale of unit otherwise than amalgamation/demerger. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding that to determine standard rent of property under the Bombay Rent Control Act the reasonable rate of return should be @ 12% of market value of land and investment in building as against

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

35D deals with amortization of certain preliminary expenses and amortization of expenditure in other cases is dealt with by section 35DD and 35DDA. Section 35E deals with deduction for expenditure on prospecting etc. for certain minerals. Section 36 deals with other deductions. Section 37 deals with general expenditure and purposes of the business or profession. That shall be allowed

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

35D deals with amortization of certain preliminary expenses and amortization of expenditure in other cases is dealt with by section 35DD and 35DDA. Section 35E deals with deduction for expenditure on prospecting etc. for certain minerals. Section 36 deals with other deductions. Section 37 deals with general expenditure and purposes of the business or profession. That shall be allowed

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

2. The LD. AO/LD, CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the LD. TPO was just a mere difference of opinion and thus levy of penalty was unjustified. 3. The LD. CIT(A) has erred in making an incorrect statement that the LD. CIT(A) in the quantum order under Section 250 itself

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

2. The LD. AO/LD, CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the LD. TPO was just a mere difference of opinion and thus levy of penalty was unjustified. 3. The LD. CIT(A) has erred in making an incorrect statement that the LD. CIT(A) in the quantum order under Section 250 itself

STRIDES SHASUN LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 13:0 Re: Rectification of mistakes apparent on record; 13:1 The Assessing Officer has made certain mistakes apparent on record particularly with regard to the computation of total income and tax thereon. 13:2 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to rectify the aforesaid mistakes and correctly compute

SI GROUP-INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT -LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on additional grounds

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Si Group India Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Large Taxpayer Unit 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre No.1 Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Manish Kumar Singh

35D -Para 2 17,911 Transfer pricing-Para 3 3,95,34,685 Provision for creditors advance- 15,48,228 Para 6 Less: Royalty disallowed in A.Y. 05-06 - (3,94,432) 4,07,06,392 Para 7 -14,38,04,694 Short term capital gains as per 29.12.827 return of income Balance Business loss -14,08,91,867 Long

LUPIN LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

price of Rs.1134.08 per share. (e) The FCCBs/Bonds were shown as liabilities under the head ‘unsecured loan’ in the balance sheet as at 31/3/2006. (f) Bonds are generally loan liability and therefore, any expenditure incurred on the issue of bonds / FCCB would be deductible revenue expenditure under section 37(1) in the year which the expenses are incurred

JSW ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical\npurposes

c) are invoked to\ndetermine the ALP.\n\n4. So far as the assessee's contention that the Hon'ble\nMumbai ITAT has accepted the assessee's without prejudice\nBenchmarking Methodology for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13\nis concerned, it is seen that the said issue is yet to\nachieve finality at the higher stages. Therefore, the\nassessee

63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. - 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') proposing an upward adjustment of INR 1,58,66,730 in respect of the international transactions relating to receipt of interest on loan granted to ICX Platform Pty South Africa ('ICX'), Financial Technologies Mid East ('FTME') and Singapore Mercantile Exchange Pte Ltd ('SMX') (ICX, FTME and SMX. All these concerns are collectively referred-to as Associated

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Velayudaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 582/Mds/2013 3. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2012; We direct the AO to treat the Proceeds realized from sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) generated out of Capital Projects registered