DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

801B of the Act which occur in Chapter VIA of the Act. He referred in particular to Section 80A(4) of the Act, which reads as under: '4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading "C--Deductions in respect

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

capital adjusted margin of the comparables any further adjustment on account of delayed payment of outstanding receivables from AE would distort the entire picture of re- characterization the transactions. In other words, transactions as to outstanding receivables cannot be re-characterized as loan deemed to be advanced by the taxpayer to its AE. We are of the considered view that

M/S. SHEELA FOADM (P) LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

801B was not suo-moto offered for disallowance by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 2.3 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that suo-moto surrender of excess claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act through a letter, during the course of assessment proceedings did not partake

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

801B of the Act in respect of profits derived from Rail Universal Beam Mill. 3.1 That the assessing officer/ DRP grossly erred in holding that deduction under section 80IB of the Act claimed by the appellant in respect of profits of the Rail Universal Beam Mill during the course of assessment proceedings was not admissible in view of the decision

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

section 801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

section 801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

gains derived from industrial undertaking by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd 317 ITR 218 (SC). 10. We find that the following case , similar issue of subsidy raised for the first time before the Tribunal, was admitted and duly adjudicated by the Tribunal: * Shree Bala ji Alloys

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

gains derived from industrial undertaking by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd 317 ITR 218 (SC). 10. We find that the following case , similar issue of subsidy raised for the first time before the Tribunal, was admitted and duly adjudicated by the Tribunal: * Shree Bala ji Alloys

DCIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JINDAL SAW LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

gains derived from industrial undertaking by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd 317 ITR 218 (SC). 10. We find that the following case , similar issue of subsidy raised for the first time before the Tribunal, was admitted and duly adjudicated by the Tribunal: * Shree Bala ji Alloys

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

801B and 80IC under the head profit and gains. 6. Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.2,18,081/- made by the AO on account of PF, ESI & EPS contribution after the due date. 7. Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

801B and 80IC under the head profit and gains. 6. Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.2,18,081/- made by the AO on account of PF, ESI & EPS contribution after the due date. 7. Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

801B and 80IC under the head profit and gains. 6. Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.2,18,081/- made by the AO on account of PF, ESI & EPS contribution after the due date. 7. Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred

DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

801B and 80IC under the head profit and gains. 6. Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.2,18,081/- made by the AO on account of PF, ESI & EPS contribution after the due date. 7. Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

801B and 80IC of the Act without further allocation of the head office & other expenses to various units eligible for such deduction. 7. On the fact and .in the circumstances of the ease the C1T (A) has erred in the addition of Rs. 4,09,871/- in respect of belated payment of employees contribution to ESI which was treated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

801B and 80IC of the Act without further allocation of the head office & other expenses to various units eligible for such deduction. 7. On the fact and .in the circumstances of the ease the C1T (A) has erred in the addition of Rs. 4,09,871/- in respect of belated payment of employees contribution to ESI which was treated

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

801B and 80IC of the Act without further allocation of the head office & other expenses to various units eligible for such deduction. 7. On the fact and .in the circumstances of the ease the C1T (A) has erred in the addition of Rs. 4,09,871/- in respect of belated payment of employees contribution to ESI which was treated

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

801B and 80IC of the Act without further allocation of the head office & other expenses to various units eligible for such deduction. 7. On the fact and .in the circumstances of the ease the C1T (A) has erred in the addition of Rs. 4,09,871/- in respect of belated payment of employees contribution to ESI which was treated

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

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidence under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants