22. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd.

ERICSSON INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 3891/Del/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle 11(1), 4Th Floor, Dhaka House, New Delhi 18/17, Wea Pusa Lane, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Gir / Pan :Aaace0138N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. Shri Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Respondent By :Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2018 Order Per Beena A. Pillai, Jm: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30/06/10 Passed By Ld. Dcit, Circle 11 (1), New Delhi Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2006- 07 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…essment Year 2003-04 and 2004-05 which is placed at pages 100-117 of paper book. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had allowed the claim of assessee by relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases CIT Vs HCL Comet System & Services, 292 ITR 299 (Del.), for the previous Assessment Year 2003-04 and 2004-05. 6.2. Similar was the view taken for immediately preceding Assessment Year in 2005-06. 6.3. Respectfully following the same view, we allow this ground raised by assessee. 7. Ground No. 5 has not been argued by Ld.Counsel, and hence is dismissed. 8. Ground No. 6 is in respect of the Tran…

ERICSSON INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2554/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income 4Th Floor, Dhaka House, 18/17 Tax, Circle-11(1), W.E.A, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace0138N Assessee By : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2014 Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

…n.) (placed at page 77 to 82 of the compilation of the assessee.) 40. That provision for bad and doubtful debts now also stand covered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s. HCL Commet System & Services, 292 ITR 299 (Del.) and by ITAT order of A.Y. 2001-02 in ITA No. 516/D/2005 (reference made to Para 10.1 at page 54 of the compilation of the assessee) 41. Thus, according to id. AH for the assessee the orders of CIT(A) in this regard passed for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 need to be upheld because the orders of CIT(A) were in - consonance with the 1…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ERICSSON INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

…0 I.T.A.No1927/Del/2011 profits u/s 115JB because the orders of Ld. CIT(A) are in consonance with the view taken by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case and with the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases CIT Vs HCL Commet System & Services, 292 ITR 299 (Del.) for the previous Assessment Year 2003-04 and 2004-05, the orders of Ld. CIT(A) in this regard are upheld and ground No.3 of the instant appeal of the Revenue is rejected. 6. Ground No.4; The Revenue has raised this ground in lieu of addition being deleted on account of transfer pricing adjustment made by the Ld. TPO to an extent of Rs.,3,1…

NHPC LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu, Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

…sion for an ascertained liability, clause (C) of Explanation to 115JA is not applicable and therefore, book profit could not be increased by the amount of provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts.” Similarly in case of CIT Vs. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd.(292 ITR 299) Delhi it was held: "Provision for Bad and Doubtful debts is to be treated as on ascertained Liability and therefore, it cannot be included in the Book Profit under Section 115JA." It is requested to please delete the above additions as the same is uncalled for and against the expressed provisions of Section 115JB of Income Tax Act", 9.4 I have c…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. EDS ELECTRONICS DATA SYSTEMS (INDIA) P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court. One Was With Regard To The Payment Made To

…ITA No. 734/2008 Page No.1 of 8 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 29.09.2008 + ITA 734/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – IV, NEW DELHI … Appellant - versus – EDS ELECTRONICS DATA SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Ms Prem Lata Bansal For the Respondent : Mr Aseem Mowar with Ms Mallika Poswal and Ms Sheena Piplani CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) LTD

The appeal is dismissed

…to Section 115- Page 8 of 11  - JB(2) of the Act (which is similar to Explanation (c) to Section 115-JA(2) of the Act) would not come into play. - 22. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., [2007] 292 ITR 299, it was noted that the expression 'provision' defined in Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 means any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation renewals or diminution in value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accura…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) LTD

The appeal is dismissed

…ation (c) to Section 115- رگ-  JB(2) of the Act (which is similar to Explanation (c) to Section 115-JA(2) of the Act) would not come into play. - 22. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., [2007] 292 ITR 299, it was noted that the expression 'provision' defined in Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 means any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation renewals or diminution in value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accura…