NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

IX Act, 1961. 4. Date of hearing in your case has been fixed for 03.12.2018 at 11:45AM at my office. You may produce all necessary evidence in support of your explanation.," 7. Assessee responded to that by filing detailed representation explaining the reason for show cause stating that order is neither erroneous and nor prejudicial to the interest

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit directly in the hands of the employee as a payment by the employer would be excluded from Section 10 (10CC). This may be in the form of any benefit to pay rent, or discharge any manner of obligation

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit directly in the hands of the employee as a payment by the employer would be excluded from Section 10 (10CC). This may be in the form of any benefit to pay rent, or discharge any manner of obligation

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit directly in the hands of the employee as a payment by the employer would be excluded from Section 10 (10CC). This may be in the form of any benefit to pay rent, or discharge any manner of obligation

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

TDS. The case of the assessee was referred by the ld AO to ld TPO for benchmarking the international transaction of the assessee. The ld TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 30.07.2021 proposing an arm‟s length price (ALP) of Rs. 5,25,89,297/- in respect of provision of marketing support services by the assessee

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

24- 27 of this written submission evidencing the said fact.\nii) That it is vehemently submitted that as per the governing section which determines the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, i.e., Sec. 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Ld. PCIT-10, New Delhi cannot assume Jurisdiction of the assessee company as the principal place of business

M/S. BAIN & COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on payments amounting to Rs. 82,34,240 made by it to its parent company, Bain & Company Inc. (Bain US) on account of payments made to third parties. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that there is no evidence that such expenses were reimbursement of expenses

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

24. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered that the identical issue has been decided in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2012 – 13 and 2013 – 14 following the order of the coordinate bench for assessment year 2010 – 11 and 2011 – 12, therefore respectfully following

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

24 not examined by the AO in terms of section 40A(2) of the Act, it is emphatically submitted that ASSPL does not qualify as a related party to the assessee in terms of provision of section 40A(2) of the Act, which is also evident from the fact that the said transaction has not be reported in Clause

JAGJIT SINGH KATARIA,SONEPAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ROHTAK

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

TDS vs Muktanangiri Maheshgiri CA No 18475 of 2017(SC); iii. Sh Puneet Singh Karnal vs ACIT Delhi ITAT dated 08.12.2022; Decisions cited in Kamla Devi vs ITO [2022] ITA No 1418/Del/2022 dated 21.09.2022(PB 107-113) iv. Paramjeet Singh vs ACIT Karnal ITA No 1393/Del/2017 dated 16.04.2021 v. Ram Kishan vs ITO ITA No 5391/Del/2017 dated 02.12.2020 vi. Nitya

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

24-26), observed that the appellant did not file Form 3CEB and the furnished audit report (forming part of audited financials) did not disclose the names of related parties to whom the payments were made.\n26. Accordingly, the PCIT directed the AO (@ page 47-48) to examine related party transactions in as much as whether they were reasonable

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid to Shriram 346 353 1,16,99,500 Volume – VIII School Withdrawal of 30% deduction 35,09,850 u/s 24 18. TOR – 30 Expenditure on account of 353 354 14,49,123 Volume – IX Provision for gratuity

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid to Shriram 346 353 1,16,99,500 Volume – VIII School Withdrawal of 30% deduction 35,09,850 u/s 24 18. TOR – 30 Expenditure on account of 353 354 14,49,123 Volume – IX Provision for gratuity

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

ix Acropetal Technologies Ltd(Seg) 7.48% Average 21.54% 6.1 The Ld. TPO, Accordingly, computed the ALP of the international transaction qua IT Enabled Services, as under: Particulars Amount Operating Cost (As per SCN) 78789866 Arm‟s Length Margin (%) 21.54% Arm‟s Length Margin (Rs.) 16971337 Arm‟s Length Price 95,761,203 Price charged by the Assessee 90608346 International Transaction

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

24 major financial disputes with multiple parties were supposedly going on for years. 63. In response to the above, the appellant submitted its response in pages 04 to 05 of the Reply dated 21.12.2018. 64. The ld. DCIT in the impugned Remand Report had stated with regard to Govinda (Rs.3,92,00,000/-) that the appellant’s contention appears

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

2(b) of Section 80IC of the Act, which provides that the activities of Information and Communication Technology Industry, Computer hardware, call centers to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee was engaged in the field of providing services of the Information and Communication Technology and its personnel were engaged to work

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

2(b) of Section 80IC of the Act, which provides that the activities of Information and Communication Technology Industry, Computer hardware, call centers to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee was engaged in the field of providing services of the Information and Communication Technology and its personnel were engaged to work

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

2 to section 9(1 )(vii) of the Act, set-aside the matter and directed the ACIT(TDS), Gurgaon to decide whether the process of carriage of calls requires manual intervention or not, by examining technical experts from the side of the department, allowing opportunity to the appellant for cross examination. 4.6 In the set aside proceedings, statements