IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

801C should he interpreted widely to include in its ambit all services related to ITC industry, whether provided/consumed within Uttarakhand or outside. It would be appreciated that service providers in the ICT industry are required to provide both onsite and offsite services, depending upon the nature of the projects and the requirements of the client. The projects on which

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SHYAM SUNDER KHEMKA, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya

801C. (2) Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, Id. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the 100P/o deduction u/s 8BIC in the eighth year on the basis of expansion in the fifth year on the same unit which has already claimed 100% exemption in first five years whereas the I.T. Act clearly provides

BAGRRYS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

capital gains, vehicle purchase, shareholding pattern etc filed P.B. 300 to 318. H] Vide letter dated 08/02/2016 (P.B.319) details of expenses filed. I] Vide letter dated 16/02/2016 (P.B.281)- BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED- Unit wise details of sales, cost of material, gross profit and ratio thereof- P.B.323- Kindly refer to the notes on P.B.323- Newai unit is a 17 I.T.A. No.3785/DEL/2018

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

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

M/S. NOV SARA INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801C of the Unit II to Rs.5,69.61.935/- as against Rs.8,22,65,833 claimed by the Appellant inter alia because. 2.1 That the addition of Rs.2.53.03,398/- made by denying the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act on export incentives, interest incomes which were directly derived from the manufacturing activity of Unit II. ITAs

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NOV SARA INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801C of the Unit II to Rs.5,69.61.935/- as against Rs.8,22,65,833 claimed by the Appellant inter alia because. 2.1 That the addition of Rs.2.53.03,398/- made by denying the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act on export incentives, interest incomes which were directly derived from the manufacturing activity of Unit II. ITAs

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801C. 8. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ^ law & on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 19,34,839/- made by AO on account of prior period expenses. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 9. Whether on facts

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 80IC which were then considered in original assessment proceedings included "Claim of 80IC deduction on Interest Income, Capital gains, excise Refund & Miscellaneous income"( Assessment order page 2), amounting to Rs.66,26,94,688/-. Only on these limited aspects the matter was examined u/s 144A by Addl.CIT also, and vide letter dated 22.12.2006, he directed that the income shown under

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 80IC which were then considered in original assessment proceedings included "Claim of 80IC deduction on Interest Income, Capital gains, excise Refund & Miscellaneous income"( Assessment order page 2), amounting to Rs.66,26,94,688/-. Only on these limited aspects the matter was examined u/s 144A by Addl.CIT also, and vide letter dated 22.12.2006, he directed that the income shown under

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gains are derived from manufacture or production of gnu article or thing and other conditions specified therein are fulfilled. 4.1.5 Under the new provision of sec 801C, there is no restriction regarding number of workers to be engaged in the industrial I.T.A.Nos.3814/Del/2015, 5420 & 7426/Del/2017 undertaking. Therefore, disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC by the AO on the ground that required

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19 (1) & (2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gains are derived from manufacture or production of gnu article or thing and other conditions specified therein are fulfilled. 4.1.5 Under the new provision of sec 801C, there is no restriction regarding number of workers to be engaged in the industrial I.T.A.Nos.3814/Del/2015, 5420 & 7426/Del/2017 undertaking. Therefore, disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC by the AO on the ground that required

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1) & 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gains are derived from manufacture or production of gnu article or thing and other conditions specified therein are fulfilled. 4.1.5 Under the new provision of sec 801C, there is no restriction regarding number of workers to be engaged in the industrial I.T.A.Nos.3814/Del/2015, 5420 & 7426/Del/2017 undertaking. Therefore, disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC by the AO on the ground that required

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

801C as per Audit Reports in Form No. 10CCB filed along with the details of profit and loss accounts in respect of units eligible for deductions u/s 80IB and 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. The adjusted book profit of Rs. 280 57,67,940/- and tax payable thereon Rs. 31,48,07,162/- has been computed u/s 115JB

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

801C as per Audit Reports in Form No. 10CCB filed along with the details of profit and loss accounts in respect of units eligible for deductions u/s 80IB and 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. The adjusted book profit of Rs. 280 57,67,940/- and tax payable thereon Rs. 31,48,07,162/- has been computed u/s 115JB

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

801C as per Audit Reports in Form No. 10CCB filed along with the details of profit and loss accounts in respect of units eligible for deductions u/s 80IB and 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. The adjusted book profit of Rs. 280 57,67,940/- and tax payable thereon Rs. 31,48,07,162/- has been computed u/s 115JB

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

801C as per Audit Reports in Form No. 10CCB filed along with the details of profit and loss accounts in respect of units eligible for deductions u/s 80IB and 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. The adjusted book profit of Rs. 280 57,67,940/- and tax payable thereon Rs. 31,48,07,162/- has been computed u/s 115JB

JCIT SPL. RANGE-12, NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANTA INDUSTRIES, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

801C for profits derived from manufacturing activity were found to be entirely bogus. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the facts that the during the assessment proceedings, the AO issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to sales parties in order to get confirmations and to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions but all remain