TERADATA INDIA PVT LTD,GRUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80G of the Act shall be allowable as deduction even if the same are made pursuant to contribution by way of CSR. Part III-Consequential grounds of appeal 7. The learned AO has erred in taking the income as per intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act instead of returned income without considering the order of Commissioner of Income

TERADATA INDIA P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80G of the Act shall be allowable as deduction even if the same are made pursuant to contribution by way of CSR. Part III-Consequential grounds of appeal 7. The learned AO has erred in taking the income as per intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act instead of returned income without considering the order of Commissioner of Income

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\N\Nita No. 4477/Del/2024\N[Assessment Year: 2020-21]\N\N| Genpact Services Llc,\Nplot 22A & B, Sector 18,\Nudyog Vihar,\Ngurgaon, Haryana-122002\Npan-Aaccg3353P\Nappellant\N|\Nassistant Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-International Tax-1(3)(1),\Nvs Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\N| Appellant By\Nshri Vishal Kalra, Adv.,\Nms. Reema Malik, Adv.& Ms.\Nsnigdha Gautam, Adv.\Nrespondent By\Nshri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N30.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N31.07.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The\Nassessing Officer Dated 29.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act') In Pursuance To The\Ndirections Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 25.06.2024 Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2020-21.\N2. The Relevant Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Indian Branch Office Of\Ngenpact Llc, A Usa Company. The Assessee Is A Service Provider\Nrendering Off-Shore Support Services Akin To Bpo Services, Including\Ncollections/Analytics Call Centre Services & Other Back-Office Support\Nservices To Its Aes. The Assessee Is Responsible For Rendering The\Ndesignated Bpo / Collections Services From Its Facility / Infrastructure In\Nindia. As For Assessment Year 2020-21, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of\Nincome (Roi') Declaring An Income Of Inr 20,57,10,540/- On 07.01.2021.\Nduring The Course Of Scrutiny, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S\N92Ca Of The Act To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo') To Determine The\Narm'S Length Price (‘Alp') In Respect Of International Transaction Entered\Ninto By The Assessee.\N2.

80G(5) of\nthe Act. Accordingly, Ground no.4 of the appeal is allowed.\n8. Ground No. 5 This ground arises out of claim of assessee that\nduring the FY 2009-10 (relevant to AY 2010-11), the Assessee acquired a\nbusiness of third-party debt collection services as well as part of the\nanalytics business from Genpact India

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nand 'attributable to'. Further they held that

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nITA Nos.319 & 320/Del/2025\nITA Nos.577& 578/Del/2025\nITA

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nITA Nos.319 & 320/Del/2025\nITA Nos.577& 578/Del/2025\nITA

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , CR BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\nand 'attributable to'. Further they held that

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD., KASTURBA NAGAR

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\nand 'attributable to'. Further they held that

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nITA Nos.319 & 320/Del/2025\nITA Nos.577& 578/Del/2025\nITA

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PRIVATE LTD,HARYANA vs. CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

80G of the Act whereby express exclusions have been provided for specific donations from being considered for deduction. 3.5. in not appreciating that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by the binding orders of Higher Appellate authorities. Other Grounds 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 115BAA which does not cover deduction claimed u/s 80G. Disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) on account of delay in payment of employees contribution of PF & ESI: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground raised against the erroneous action of the learned AO in disallowing

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 115BAA which does not cover deduction claimed u/s 80G. Disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) on account of delay in payment of employees contribution of PF & ESI: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground raised against the erroneous action of the learned AO in disallowing

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMTED,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 115BAA which does not cover deduction claimed u/s 80G. Disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) on account of delay in payment of employees contribution of PF & ESI: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground raised against the erroneous action of the learned AO in disallowing

NATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY FEDERATION OF INDIA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

80G of the Act which has duly been allowed. According to the Revenue, the Annual membership fee is not a voluntary donation but is charged in lieu of services received/receivable from the organization upon 4 entering into the membership by consenting to the terms and conditions of the organization. Further, according to the Revenue activities of the registered public charitable

ACTION ALLIANCE FOR RECYCLING BEVERAGE CARTONS ('AARC'),NEW DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. K. N. Chary

80G. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a society and filed an application in form 10A and 10G on 29th January, 2019 seeking registration u/s.12AA and exemption u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) issued a questionnaire dated 19.02.2019 requesting it to submit certain documents in support

ACTION ALLIANCE FOR RECYCLING BEVERAGE CARTONS ('AARC'),NEW DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. K. N. Chary

80G. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a society and filed an application in form 10A and 10G on 29th January, 2019 seeking registration u/s.12AA and exemption u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) issued a questionnaire dated 19.02.2019 requesting it to submit certain documents in support

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

80G of the Act amounting to INR 18,55,205/- has not been allowed to the Appellant (computation sheet at page 58-62 of paperbook part 2). After this deduction is allowed, the tax demand will be revised to INR 70,71,020 from INR 78,60,590/- after accounting for the revised interest. Ground no. 4-7: Nut pressed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ODIA SAMAJ, NEW DELHI

In the result Cross objections raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 80G of the Act. The case of the Assessment Unit is that the TDS is not required on donations