CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Capital gains” under section 74(1) and no tax holiday deficiency under section 80J(3) in respect of any of the assessment years comprised in the tax holiday period will, in so far as such loss or deficiency relates to the business of industrial undertaking, be carried forward or set off in computing the income of the assessment year immediately

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -II vs. KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

capital gains). Under section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set-off against income under

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

capital expenditure or a personal expense of the assessee but being otherwise laid out or expended fully and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession is allowed to be deducted in computing income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession.” The other provisions mentioned in Chapter IV and provisions of Chapter V not being relevant

M/S R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2011-12]

gains of business or profession" begins thereafter. This proposition is in line with the form of return. Allowing deduction at the earliest stage of business income computation almost blurs the difference between the commercial profits and tax profits. 17. The substituted section 10A continues to remain in Chapter III. It is titled as "Incomes which do not form part

GREAT EASTERN EXPORTS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

80A (2) and 80B (5) would bring out the fact that various deductions provided in this Chapter are to be computed on the “gross total income‟. It also follows that where such gross total income is found to be a net loss in the year concerned, no deduction under this Chapter is to be allowed. 6. The contours and scope

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

gains derived from eligible business for the purposes of section 80IA of the Income-tax Act 1961. 6 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. 9. He further observed that as regards reliance placed by assessee on Ld. ITAT Delhi’s order for AY 2001-02 in his case & the order of High Court on the issue, it is mentioned with utmost respect

M/S PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

80A(2) of the Act. The Ld. counsel in support of his contention relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd reported in (2010) 321 ITR 463 . 4. The Ld DR supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that deduction under section 80IA

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

80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under Section 10B(1) read with Section 10B(4) or to whittle down the ambit of those provisions as is sought to be suggested by Mr. Manchanda. Also, he is not right in contending that the decisions of the High Courts referred to above have not noticed

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

80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under Section 10B(1) read with Section 10B(4) or to whittle down the ambit of those provisions as is sought to be suggested by Mr. Manchanda. Also, he is not right in contending that the decisions of the High Courts referred to above have not noticed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which are to be included in the assessee‟s total

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which are to be included in the assessee‟s total

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is\nallowed

capital Exp. #\n43,698,289\nIncome from Business/ Profession\n197,479,545\nGross Total Income\n1,875,866,703\nLess: Deduction u/s 801Α\n1,875,866,703\nTotal Income\n5.1\nThe assessee has explained that it has claimed deduction under section\n80-IA of the Act on the basis of the certificate issued by the Auditor in form No.\n10CCB

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

NEC HCL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result we confirm the finding the of the CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance u/s 40a (i) of The Income tax Act of Rs

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

80A (4) cannot defeat that interpretation. The object of Section 80-A (4) was explained as ensuring that "double benefit does not result to an assessee in respect of the same income, once 6 | P a g e NEC HCL System Technologies Ltd. V ACIT ITA No 5497/Del /2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ACIT V NEC HCL System Technologies

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Services [2000] 5 SCC 515; and Padman Sundra Rao vs State of Tamil Page 12 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC), for the proposition that it is one of the fundamental principles of interpretation of statute that omissions in statute as a general Rule cannot be supplied by construction. It was submitted that

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Services [2000] 5 SCC 515; and Padman Sundra Rao vs State of Tamil Page 12 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC), for the proposition that it is one of the fundamental principles of interpretation of statute that omissions in statute as a general Rule cannot be supplied by construction. It was submitted that

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital receipt and cannot be included in the taxable income. Though this ground raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been recorded in the order, the CIT(A) did not take a decision on the same. Similar ground was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal, which was not considered by the Tribunal, though the Tribunal refers

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital receipt and cannot be included in the taxable income. Though this ground raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been recorded in the order, the CIT(A) did not take a decision on the same. Similar ground was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal, which was not considered by the Tribunal, though the Tribunal refers