Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.76 seconds)
Documents citing Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai on 11 April, 2022

Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy,Kadapa vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad on 12 February, 2025

14. We further noted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of TATA Communications Ltd., Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3972/Mum/2017 for A.Y 2003-04 in order dated 16.08.2019, where the Tribunal after considering arguments of both sides, including the case laws cited by the Ld. AR for the assessee as well as the Ld. DR, came to the conclusions that unless the Add. CIT who had passed the assessment order possesses valid jurisdiction and authority by virtue of order u/s 120(4)b of the Act, he cannot act as an A.O and pass assessment order consequently, the assessment order passed by the A.O is null and void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. We further noted that the Tribunal while deciding the issue has considered plethora of judicial decisions including the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of TATA Sons Ltd., in ITA No. 6981 & 7071/Mum/2005, where the Tribunal had elaborately discussed the issue in light of arguments advanced by both sides and also notification issued by CBDT u/s 120(4)b of the Act, in notification No. 64/2014, dated 13.11.2014 and held that if assessment order passed by the officer above rank of JCIT and Addl. CIT, then such A.O should have valid jurisdiction / authority by virtue of an order passed u/s 120(4)b of the Act. In absence of specific order 52 ITA No.670/Hyd/2022 & CO No.1/Hyd/2023 Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy u/s 120(4)b of the Act, as well as Sec. 127(1) of the Act, the JCIT cannot have valid jurisdiction and authority to perform functions and powers of an A.O, consequently the assessment order passed by the A.O is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 112 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, Kadapa on 12 February, 2025

14. We further noted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of TATA Communications Ltd., Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3972/Mum/2017 for A.Y 2003-04 in order dated 16.08.2019, where the Tribunal after considering arguments of both sides, including the case laws cited by the Ld. AR for the assessee as well as the Ld. DR, came to the conclusions that unless the Add. CIT who had passed the assessment order possesses valid jurisdiction and authority by virtue of order u/s 120(4)b of the Act, he cannot act as an A.O and pass assessment order consequently, the assessment order passed by the A.O is null and void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. We further noted that the Tribunal while deciding the issue has considered plethora of judicial decisions including the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of TATA Sons Ltd., in ITA No. 6981 & 7071/Mum/2005, where the Tribunal had elaborately discussed the issue in light of arguments advanced by both sides and also notification issued by CBDT u/s 120(4)b of the Act, in notification No. 64/2014, dated 13.11.2014 and held that if assessment order passed by the officer above rank of JCIT and Addl. CIT, then such A.O should have valid jurisdiction / authority by virtue of an order passed u/s 120(4)b of the Act. In absence of specific order 52 ITA No.670/Hyd/2022 & CO No.1/Hyd/2023 Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy u/s 120(4)b of the Act, as well as Sec. 127(1) of the Act, the JCIT cannot have valid jurisdiction and authority to perform functions and powers of an A.O, consequently the assessment order passed by the A.O is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 112 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs Ddit(It) 2 (1), Mumbai on 15 March, 2024

30. With regard to Ground No. 1, Assessee has raised ground against the transfer pricing assessment order is bad in law without inherent jurisdiction in excess of express statutory provisions of the Act, by relying on decision of DCIT v. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., [174 TTJ 570 (Mumbai ITAT)] and Tata Sons v. ACIT (162 ITD 450). At the time of hearing, it was submitted that this ground of appeal is requested to be kept open and adjudication of this ground serves for academic purpose Page No.| 31 ITA NO.1407, 1638, 2839 & 2936, /MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., only. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is kept open and not adjudicated at this stage.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai on 15 March, 2024

30. With regard to Ground No. 1, Assessee has raised ground against the transfer pricing assessment order is bad in law without inherent jurisdiction in excess of express statutory provisions of the Act, by relying on decision of DCIT v. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., [174 TTJ 570 (Mumbai ITAT)] and Tata Sons v. ACIT (162 ITD 450). At the time of hearing, it was submitted that this ground of appeal is requested to be kept open and adjudication of this ground serves for academic purpose Page No.| 31 ITA NO.1407, 1638, 2839 & 2936, /MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., only. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is kept open and not adjudicated at this stage.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs Ddit(It) 2 (1), Mumbai on 15 March, 2024

30. With regard to Ground No. 1, Assessee has raised ground against the transfer pricing assessment order is bad in law without inherent jurisdiction in excess of express statutory provisions of the Act, by relying on decision of DCIT v. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., [174 TTJ 570 (Mumbai ITAT)] and Tata Sons v. ACIT (162 ITD 450). At the time of hearing, it was submitted that this ground of appeal is requested to be kept open and adjudication of this ground serves for academic purpose Page No.| 31 ITA NO.1407, 1638, 2839 & 2936, /MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., only. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is kept open and not adjudicated at this stage.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai on 15 March, 2024

30. With regard to Ground No. 1, Assessee has raised ground against the transfer pricing assessment order is bad in law without inherent jurisdiction in excess of express statutory provisions of the Act, by relying on decision of DCIT v. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., [174 TTJ 570 (Mumbai ITAT)] and Tata Sons v. ACIT (162 ITD 450). At the time of hearing, it was submitted that this ground of appeal is requested to be kept open and adjudication of this ground serves for academic purpose Page No.| 31 ITA NO.1407, 1638, 2839 & 2936, /MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., only. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is kept open and not adjudicated at this stage.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Rajeev Bansal on 3 October, 2024

Sudhesh Taneja (supra) [36] 27 Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) [66]; Mon Mohan Kohli (supra) [66]; Tata Communications Transformation Services (supra) [34] 28 Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) [80]; Sudesh Taneja (supra) [40]; Mon Mohan Kohli [49]; Tata Communications Transformation Services [49] 29 (2023) 1 SCC 617 Page 46 of 112 PART A of the proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided Section 148 notice has been issued on or after 1-4-2021.” However, the Court observed that the Revenue issued the reassessment notices under a “bona fide belief that the amendments may not yet have been enforced.” This Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 in order to balance the interests of the Revenue and the assesses and directed that the reassessment notices issued under the old regime shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148-A(b) of the new regime. This Court issued the following directions:
Supreme Court of India Cites 177 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Tata Industries Ltd,Mumbai vs Acit Rg 2(3), Mumbai on 19 November, 2025

10.4 In terms of aforesaid observations by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), which is further discussed and deliberated upon by the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Tata Consultancy Service Ltd. (supra), respectfully following the same, the issue is allowed in favour of the assessee with the directions to Ld. AO to verify whether the overseas taxes paid by the assessee are eligible for any relief u/s 90 of the Act and if not so, the claim of assessee u/s 37 should be allowed. Ground No. 10 of the assessee, therefore, is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 27 ITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012 ITA No.5690/MUM/2015 & CO No. 144/MUM/2016 10.5 Resultantly, ITA No. 3157/Mum/2012 of the assessee is partly allowed, as per our observations hereinabove.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Addl Cit 2(3), Mumbai vs Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai on 19 November, 2025

10.4 In terms of aforesaid observations by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), which is further discussed and deliberated upon by the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Tata Consultancy Service Ltd. (supra), respectfully following the same, the issue is allowed in favour of the assessee with the directions to Ld. AO to verify whether the overseas taxes paid by the assessee are eligible for any relief u/s 90 of the Act and if not so, the claim of assessee u/s 37 should be allowed. Ground No. 10 of the assessee, therefore, is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 27 ITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012 ITA No.5690/MUM/2015 & CO No. 144/MUM/2016 10.5 Resultantly, ITA No. 3157/Mum/2012 of the assessee is partly allowed, as per our observations hereinabove.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next