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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(13)/(5) of the Act, completed the assessment, wherein a demand of Rs 297,26,54,239 was raised, however, no adverse observations/ additions was made with respect to the rights issue. 2.3 Subsequent to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh („learned CIT‟) passed an order under Section 263 of the Act, directing

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)

68,30,713 Ground no 2 On the facts and in circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT has erred in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act when the original assessment order has been passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38.What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

section 144C(1) of the Act but the same was not so passed, in the following decisions as well, the entire assessment proceedings have been held to be invalid and liable to be quashed: (i) Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP [2014] 46 taxmann.com 100/225 Taxman 35/369 ITR 113 (Madras) affirmed by the Division Bench

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

68 (ii) taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, (iii) dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‘s SLP dismissed by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

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

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL LICENSING COMPANY BV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, V.P. & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2479, 2480 & 2481/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2007-08) In The Matter Of:-

Section 144C of the Act. Resultantly^* it takes away the petitioner's right to object to the Draft Assessment Order before the DRP. Therefore, taking away a valuable right of the petitioner before the Assessing Officer passes a final order which can be subjected to appellate proceedings. In support, reliance was placed upon the decisions of this Court