Pr. CIT v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

388 ITR 371High Court2016#4357 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited authority for?

Deduction under section 80IA(2A) is available for telecommunication services, including other incomes that form part of the profits and gains of the eligible business. The legislative intent in adopting specific wording for subsection (2A) indicates a conscious departure from previous provisions.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited · 388 ITR 371 · section 80IA(2A) · telecommunication services · eligible business · deduction for other incomes · legislative intention

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 194JSection 2(47)Section 234BSection 35ABB

Issues it is cited on

section 35abbsection 80ia(1)section 39section 47deduction under section 80iasection 43(1)section 80ia(4)eligible businessdemergerdeduction u/s 80iasection 92ca(1)section 80ia

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…t. We find that while examining the applicability of the\nprovisions of section 80IA(2A) of the Act in case of a taxpayer engaged in\nproviding telecommunication services, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT\nvs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., reported in (2016) 388 ITR 371 (Del)\nobserved as follows:\n“10. The assessee filed appeals and the revenue filed cross-appeals before\nthe ITAT. The ITAT in the impugned orders concluded that with sub-section\n(2A) beginning with a non-obstante clause, the legislative intention of making\navailable to an undertaking, providing telecommunication services, the\nbenefit of deduc…

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…t. We find that while examining the applicability of the\nprovisions of section 80IA(2A) of the Act in case of a taxpayer engaged in\nproviding telecommunication services, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT\nvs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., reported in (2016) 388 ITR 371 (Del)\nobserved as follows:\n“10. The assessee filed appeals and the revenue filed cross-appeals before\nthe ITAT. The ITAT in the impugned orders concluded that with sub-section\n(2A) beginning with a non-obstante clause, the legislative intention of making\navailable to an undertaking, providing telecommunication services, the\nbenefit of deduc…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…e provisions of subsection (2A) of section 80IA of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the decision rendered by Tribunal in the case of BSNL (supra) was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. BSNL reported as 388 ITR 371. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further referred to the observations of the DRP for assessment year 2013-14. He referred to the findings of DRP at para 12, wherein the DRP had recorded,“ the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held the deduction u/s. 80IA(2A) of the Act is also allowable in respect of other incomes, which are part of profits and gains…

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ovisions of subsection (2A) of\nsection 80IA of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further\nsubmits that the decision rendered by Tribunal in the case of\nBSNL (supra) was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of PCIT vs. BSNL reported as 388 ITR 371. The ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee further referred to the observations of the DRP\nfor assessment year 2013-14. He referred to the findings of DRP\nat para 12, wherein the DRP had recorded,“ the Hon’ble Delhi\nHigh Court has held the deduction u/s.80IA(2A) of the Act is\nalso allowable in respect of other incomes, which are part of\nprofits and…

ACIT , CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. NHPC LTD., FARIDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5299/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80

…o consequence as both interest income and interest expenditure are liable to be excluded for the purpose of deduction under section 80-I of the Act." 48. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited reported in 388 ITR 371 explaining the meaning derived from while computing the deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, has held as under: "8. The question arose in the context of the Assessee being asked to explain why certain specific items categorized as 'other 14 ITA Nos.5299 & 4915/Del./2019 income' and 'extraordinary item' in the Profit and Loss Account in assessment yea…

NHPC LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-II, , FARIDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4915/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80

…o consequence as both interest income and interest expenditure are liable to be excluded for the purpose of deduction under section 80-I of the Act." 48. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited reported in 388 ITR 371 explaining the meaning derived from while computing the deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, has held as under: "8. The question arose in the context of the Assessee being asked to explain why certain specific items categorized as 'other 14 ITA Nos.5299 & 4915/Del./2019 income' and 'extraordinary item' in the Profit and Loss Account in assessment yea…

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VODAFONE INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5598/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5598/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaach-5332-B आअसं. 5078/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 Revenue By : S/Shrianand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari Assessee By :S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Ketanved & Ms. Soumya Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…provisions of sub- section (2A) of section 80IA of the Act. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further submits that the decision rendered by Tribunal in the case of BSNL (supra) was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. BSNL reported as 388 ITR 371. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further referred to the observations of the DRP for assessment year 2013-14. He referred to the findings of DRP at para 12, wherein the DRP had recorded,“the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held the deduction u/s. 80IA(2A) of the Act is also allowable in respect of other incomes, which are part of profits and gains o…

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5078/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5598/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaach-5332-B आअसं. 5078/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 Revenue By : S/Shrianand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari Assessee By :S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Ketanved & Ms. Soumya Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…provisions of sub- section (2A) of section 80IA of the Act. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further submits that the decision rendered by Tribunal in the case of BSNL (supra) was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. BSNL reported as 388 ITR 371. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further referred to the observations of the DRP for assessment year 2013-14. He referred to the findings of DRP at para 12, wherein the DRP had recorded,“the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held the deduction u/s. 80IA(2A) of the Act is also allowable in respect of other incomes, which are part of profits and gains o…

NHPC LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-II, , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1804/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…house 22,912 126,019 335,464 104,848 589,243 recovery Total 16,388,093 3,447,950 6,557,760 3,561,072 29,954,875 14. The ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 388 ITR 371 wherein meaning of word “derived from” while computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act has been explained. 11 ITA.No.1804/Del./2018 NHPC Ltd., Faridabad. 15. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 (supra) decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “47. We find that the…

NHPC LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-II, , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1803/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1803/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nhpc Ltd., Vs Dcit, Nhpc Office Complex, 4Th Floor, Circle-Ii, Finance Division, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. N. Shete, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M. N. Shete, Sr. DR
Section 80I

…6,019 335,464 104,848 589,243 11 recovery Total 16,388,093 3,447,950 6,557,760 3,561,072 29,954,875 4 NHPC Ltd. 14. The ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 388 ITR 371 wherein meaning of word “derived from” while computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act has been explained. 15. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 (supra) decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “47. We find that the AAR in the case of National Fertilizers Limited…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. NHPC LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5211/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Circle-Ii, Faridabad. Nhpc Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacn 0149 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. Acit Nhpc Ltd., Circle – Ii, Nhpc Office Comples, Faridabad 4Th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT, Vs. M/s. NHPC Ltd., Circle-II, Faridabad. NHPC Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. PAN No. AAACN 0149 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. ACIT NHPC Ltd., Circle – II, NHPC Office Comples, Faridabad 4th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Sh…

SR. MANAGER(FIN)--TAX, NHPC LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5106/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Circle-Ii, Faridabad. Nhpc Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacn 0149 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. Acit Nhpc Ltd., Circle – Ii, Nhpc Office Comples, Faridabad 4Th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT, Vs. M/s. NHPC Ltd., Circle-II, Faridabad. NHPC Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. PAN No. AAACN 0149 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. ACIT NHPC Ltd., Circle – II, NHPC Office Comples, Faridabad 4th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Sh…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD.,, FARIDABAD

In the result and appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 2786/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy.CIT, Circle-II, M/s NHPC Ltd., NHPC Complex, Block-B, CGO Complex, Vs. Sector-33, Faridabad. NH-IV, Faridabad. PAN:AAACN 0149C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s NHPC Ltd., NHPC Complex, Asst. CIT, Sector-33, Faridabad. Vs. Circle-II, Faridabad. PAN:AAACN 0149C (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR Respondent by: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, CA Date of hearing: 12/3…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. NHPC LTD., FARIDABAD

ITA 466/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80l

…use 22,912 126,019 335,464 104,848 589,243 recovery Total 16,388,093 3,447,950 6,557,760 3,561,072 29,954,875 14. The ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 388 ITR 371 wherein meaning of word “derived from” while computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act has been explained. 9 ITA No.297/Del./2016 ITA No.466/Del./2016 Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for 15. AY 2010-11 (supra) decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “47. We find that the AA…

M/S NHPC LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 297/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80l

…use 22,912 126,019 335,464 104,848 589,243 recovery Total 16,388,093 3,447,950 6,557,760 3,561,072 29,954,875 14. The ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 388 ITR 371 wherein meaning of word “derived from” while computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act has been explained. 9 ITA No.297/Del./2016 ITA No.466/Del./2016 Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for 15. AY 2010-11 (supra) decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “47. We find that the AA…

NHPC LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3738/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43A

…o consequence as both interest income and interest expenditure are liable to be excluded for the purpose of deduction under section 80-I of the Act.” 48. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited reported in 388 ITR 371 explaining the meaning derived from while computing the deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, has held as under: “8. The question arose in the context of the Assessee being asked to explain why certain specific items categorized as 'other income' and 'extra- ordinary item' in the Profit and Loss Account in assessment year 2004-05 should not be excluded…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. NHPC LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3650/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43A

…o consequence as both interest income and interest expenditure are liable to be excluded for the purpose of deduction under section 80-I of the Act.” 48. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited reported in 388 ITR 371 explaining the meaning derived from while computing the deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, has held as under: “8. The question arose in the context of the Assessee being asked to explain why certain specific items categorized as 'other income' and 'extra- ordinary item' in the Profit and Loss Account in assessment year 2004-05 should not be excluded…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-09 vs. M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.

Appeals are dismissed, without any order as to costs

ITA/784/2017HC Delhi03 Dec 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…ion (2) and thereafter, thirty per cent of such profits and gains for further five assessment years. Sub-section (2A) was examined and interpreted by the Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (2016) 388 ITR 371 (Delhi) as reflecting the legislative intent not to restrict and control the benefit limited to “profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise” an expression used in sub-section (1) to Section 80IA of the Act. Consciously and deliberately the legislature has not ITA Nos. 782/2017 & 784/2017…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-09 vs. M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.

Appeals are dismissed, without any order as to costs

ITA/782/2017HC Delhi03 Dec 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…ion (2) and thereafter, thirty per cent of such profits and gains for further five assessment years. Sub-section (2A) was examined and interpreted by the Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (2016) 388 ITR 371 (Delhi) as reflecting the legislative intent not to restrict and control the benefit limited to “profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise” an expression used in sub-section (1) to Section 80IA of the Act. Consciously and deliberately the legislature has not ITA Nos. 782/2017 & 784/2017…

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 431/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…respect of all its receipt/ income as discussed above. The ld. AR in support of his claim relied on the order of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of BSNL Vs. DCIT reported in 156 ITD 847 which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 388 ITR 371. The ld. AR supported the order of ld. CIT-A for the deduction allowed u/s 80-IA of the Act in respect of certain receipts as discussed in ground no. 3 in ITA No. 377/Kol/2009 (for Revenue’s appeal). 41. We have heard the rival contentions & perused the materials available on record. In the instant case the issues relates to the deduction claimed…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

Pr. CIT v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (388 ITR 371) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax