ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NUWAVE E SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
ITA 3676/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2007-08
Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.
Section 10Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 801A
10 of Section 801A when the assessee had failed to prove by adducing necessary evidence that the sale proceeds of alleged source code and the income therefrom were eligible for deduction u/s. 10A.
(c) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that invoking of Section
