MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REGENCY CREATIONS LTD

ia) In relation to an undertaking which begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing on or after the 1st day of April, 1994, its exports of such articles and things are not less than seventy-five per cent of the total sales thereof during the previous year; (ii) It is not formed by the splitting

GENPACT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

gain even after the assessee has offered it to tax. The Revenue has failed to bring on record any material to controvert the aforesaid factual finding of learned first appellate authority. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of learned first appellate authority by dismissing the ground. 10. In ground no. 5, the Revenue has challenged the decision

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GENPACT INDIA NOW MERGED WITH GENPACT INDIA PVT. LTD.), HARYANA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

gain even after the assessee has offered it to tax. The Revenue has failed to bring on record any material to controvert the aforesaid factual finding of learned first appellate authority. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of learned first appellate authority by dismissing the ground. 10. In ground no. 5, the Revenue has challenged the decision

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NUWAVE E SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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.

gain on account of currency fluctuation of INR 1,23,33,934/- by holding the same being not earned from the eligible business. 4. Besides this, AO made the disallowance of INR 3,55,47,260/- by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the assessee has deducted 10% TDS on buy back of shares

NIHO CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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.

gain on account of currency fluctuation of INR 1,23,33,934/- by holding the same being not earned from the eligible business. 4. Besides this, AO made the disallowance of INR 3,55,47,260/- by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the assessee has deducted 10% TDS on buy back of shares

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GENPACT INDIA, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Capital International Services) AY 2011-12 assessee has sought to claim higher deduction u/s 10a for an income which was not derived by the undertaking in the STP area. These receipts are liable to be taxed as non-10A income and only those expenditure which are wholly and exclusively incurred for earning this income are to be excluded. Perusal

MS. GENPACT INDIA,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Capital International Services) AY 2011-12 assessee has sought to claim higher deduction u/s 10a for an income which was not derived by the undertaking in the STP area. These receipts are liable to be taxed as non-10A income and only those expenditure which are wholly and exclusively incurred for earning this income are to be excluded. Perusal

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

gain and it cannot be subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. It is not liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24), 28, 45 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on account of saving of energy consumption

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

gain and it cannot be subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. It is not liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24), 28, 45 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on account of saving of energy consumption

PINE PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED

10A or section 10B, in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking or enterprise. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this section, or under the second proviso to sub-section

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: Provided that in case the aforesaid arrangement involves a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, the amount of profits from such transaction shall be determined having regard

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

IA of the Act that would be available to the\nassessee by considering the equivalent value of steam as\ndetermined above in ground no. 32.\"\n\n2. Further, in order to re-determine the arm's length value of steam and\nconsequently to enhance the deduction under section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

IA of the Act that would be available to the\nassessee by considering the equivalent value of steam as\ndetermined above in ground no. 32.\"\n\n2. Further, in order to re-determine the arm's length value of steam and\nconsequently to enhance the deduction under section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

IA of the Act that would be available to the\nassessee by considering the equivalent value of steam as\ndetermined above in ground no. 32.\"\n2. Further, in order to re-determine the arm's length value of steam and\nconsequently to enhance the deduction under section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

IA of the Act that would be available to\nthe assessee by considering the equivalent value of steam as\ndetermined above in ground no. 32.\"\n2. Further, in order to re-determine the arm's length value of steam and\nconsequently to enhance the deduction under section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

10A(a) to observe here that the expression 'comparable un- controlled transaction' signifies a transaction between enterprises other than associate ones; whether resident or non-resident. It has already come on record that the TPO in the instant case relied upon assessee's agreed price rate of US $ 161.20 per kg for Deltamethrin supply in order to make the impugned

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

10A(d) of the Rules provides that closely linked transactions can be considered together. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that it is possible to conduct combined evaluation of interlinked transactions and it is equally possible for the AE involved in the controlled transaction to undertake/provide benefit in one controlled transaction to compensate