M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

241 (Del), held that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2010, extending period of payment till due date of filing of return was retrospective in nature as the said amendment was procedural in nature, intended to ensure collection of TDS

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tata Vs. Assistant Commissioner Teleserviceslimited New Of Income Tax Circle 76(1) Delhi Districtcentral Laxmi Taxation Department Nagar New Delhi 110092 M/S Tata Teleservices Limited 2A, Old Ishwar Nahar Mathura Road New Delhi 110065 (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) 2 vs M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd. (2022) [ ITA 1417/208 (Delhi) 4. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) [241 taxman 497] (Karnataka) 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) [88 ITR 192] 6. Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal special bench in Narang Overseas (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT Central Circle

The Motor & General Finance Ltd. etc. etc. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, New Delhi

TDS and advance tax paid by the assessee was refunded along with interest under Section 244(a) within the prescribed time period. When the assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the assessee was called upon to make the payments as per the demand made on the basis of the assessment order, the assessee

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS TAMILNADU PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 194J of the Act. But the learned Counsel for the appellants - Revenue attempted to contend that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the above referred decision of the Apex Court, it has been observed that if a distinguishable and identifiable service is provided, then it can be said as a "technical services". Therefore, he submitted that in the present

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS TAMILNADU PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 194J of the Act. But the learned Counsel for the appellants - Revenue attempted to contend that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the above referred decision of the Apex Court, it has been observed that if a distinguishable and identifiable service is provided, then it can be said as a "technical services". Therefore, he submitted that in the present

M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS (TAMILNADU) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 194J of the Act. But the learned Counsel for the appellants - Revenue attempted to contend that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the above referred decision of the Apex Court, it has been observed that if a distinguishable and identifiable service is provided, then it can be said as a "technical services". Therefore, he submitted that in the present

M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS (TAMILNADU) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 194J of the Act. But the learned Counsel for the appellants - Revenue attempted to contend that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the above referred decision of the Apex Court, it has been observed that if a distinguishable and identifiable service is provided, then it can be said as a "technical services". Therefore, he submitted that in the present

CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

241; 6.1. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that Explanation 2 section 195 (1) of the Act supports case of revenue, whereby it clarifies the legislative intent behind amendment made to section 195 (1). The Ld. Sr.DR submitted that assessee should have made an application to Assessing Officer (Ld.AO) to obtain his permission for non-deduction of TDS

CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

241; 6.1. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that Explanation 2 section 195 (1) of the Act supports case of revenue, whereby it clarifies the legislative intent behind amendment made to section 195 (1). The Ld. Sr.DR submitted that assessee should have made an application to Assessing Officer (Ld.AO) to obtain his permission for non-deduction of TDS

CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

241; 6.1. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that Explanation 2 section 195 (1) of the Act supports case of revenue, whereby it clarifies the legislative intent behind amendment made to section 195 (1). The Ld. Sr.DR submitted that assessee should have made an application to Assessing Officer (Ld.AO) to obtain his permission for non-deduction of TDS

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

section 69C of the Act disregarding the submissions made by the Appellant in this regard. The Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has erred in: 13.1. making the addition of Rs. 269,241 merely on the basis of Individual Transaction Statement generated through internal system of the Income Tax Department wherein TDS

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

section 69C of the Act disregarding the submissions made by the Appellant in this regard. The Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has erred in: 13.1. making the addition of Rs. 269,241 merely on the basis of Individual Transaction Statement generated through internal system of the Income Tax Department wherein TDS

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

TDS. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that the disallowances confirmed by ld. CIT(A) increase profit proportionately. Hence, the deduction under section 80IAB will also increase proportionately. There is no real tax impact. Disallowance is only an academic adjustment, which is not justified in the assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire profit & gain

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

TDS. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that the disallowances confirmed by ld. CIT(A) increase profit proportionately. Hence, the deduction under section 80IAB will also increase proportionately. There is no real tax impact. Disallowance is only an academic adjustment, which is not justified in the assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire profit & gain

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

TDS. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that the disallowances confirmed by ld. CIT(A) increase profit proportionately. Hence, the deduction under section 80IAB will also increase proportionately. There is no real tax impact. Disallowance is only an academic adjustment, which is not justified in the assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire profit & gain

JAGDISH CHANDRA MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt.Year: 2008-09

241 is passed] to the date the refund is granted. [(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989, or any subsequent assessment years.]” The provisions of section 244A read as under : 244A. (1) Where refund of any amount becomes

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the above, the decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra) would support the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. In view of the totality of above facts, we are unable to uphold the view of the TPO that

EAST DELHI WASTE PROCESSING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesheast Delhi Waste Processing Vs. Dcit, Company Pvt. Ltd, Circle-7(1), 221, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi Phase-Iii, Okhla Industrial Estate, South Delhi, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco7539D

241(2) read with Section 242(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, among others, praying that the then existing directors of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS) be superseded by new directors on the grounds including, precarious and critical financial condition of IL&FS and its group companies and that affairs of IL&FS were being conducted

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

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

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

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said