M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), the Appellant respectfully submits that the learned A0 erred in passing the order on the following grounds: 1. In making an upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 946,786,679 in determining the arms length pricing (ALP) of the international transactions pertaining to (a) investment advisory

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13 in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The assessee has raised five grounds. 3. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative on the instructions of the assessee did not want to press grounds

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) r/w 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2008–09, in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–I (DRP), Mumbai. 2. Brief facts are, the assessee an Indian Company is a subsidiary of M/s. Beaumont Development Centre Holding Ltd. and part of the Accenture Group. The assessee

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

143(3) or 147 / 263\netc. is seen and a copy of the relevant order is placed on file and\nensure that the total income assessed under section 153A of the\nI.T. Act is not less than the total income determined in\nproceedings prior to the order under section 153A of the Act.\nThe office note should also give finding

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

143(2), the Assessing Officer called for various details, including the computation of capital gains offered by the assessee. In response, the assessee filed detailed replies and supporting documents on 10 July 2021; 4 February 2022; and 26 March 2022, elaborating the grounds of his claim and the computation issues arising under the Act. After considering the submissions, the Assessing