ACIT-CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON vs. TERADATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part II-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section 80G. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of INR 21,47.646/- claimed under section 80G

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

5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part II-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section 80G. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of INR 21,47.646/- claimed under section 80G

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

5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part II-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section 80G. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of INR 21,47.646/- claimed under section 80G

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

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

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

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:

TDS Office on the basis of disallowance of Rs. 2,69,241 being made in the draft assessment order. 14. The Ld. AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making an addition of Rs. 463 in respect of contribution to Employee State Insurance wrongly considering the date of payment to be beyond

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:

TDS Office on the basis of disallowance of Rs. 2,69,241 being made in the draft assessment order. 14. The Ld. AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making an addition of Rs. 463 in respect of contribution to Employee State Insurance wrongly considering the date of payment to be beyond

PLANMAN CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed ignoring the fact that TDS has been deposited before the due date of filing the return and in view of the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) the same are allowable during the year under consideration. (iii)Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, TDS being deposited in the succeeding year

PLANMAN CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed ignoring the fact that TDS has been deposited before the due date of filing the return and in view of the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) the same are allowable during the year under consideration. (iii)Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, TDS being deposited in the succeeding year

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

5 of the appeal of the assessee is against an addition of Rs. 3.02 lakhs by estimating the value of the scrap lying in stock as at the end of the relevant previous year on hypothetical and national basis. Ld. assessing officer on perusal of the significant accounting policies mentioned in scheduled 12 of the financial statements for the financial

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree