ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

10B of the Act. For the sake of convenience, relevant finding of learned CIT(A) is reproduced hereinbelow: 8. On careful perusal of the various documents furnished before me, I find that there was a definite distinction in the way the industrial undertaking owned by the appellant firm operated in the current assessment year as compared to the earlier years

M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORT,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

10B of the Act. For the sake of convenience, relevant finding of learned CIT(A) is reproduced hereinbelow: 8. On careful perusal of the various documents furnished before me, I find that there was a definite distinction in the way the industrial undertaking owned by the appellant firm operated in the current assessment year as compared to the earlier years

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

10B of the Act. For the sake of convenience, relevant finding of learned CIT(A) is reproduced hereinbelow: 8. On careful perusal of the various documents furnished before me, I find that there was a definite distinction in the way the industrial undertaking owned by the appellant firm operated in the current assessment year as compared to the earlier years

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

10B(3) of Income Tax Rules. However, since this adjustment was not possible, therefore, this company should not have been included in the list of comparables. Further, we find that the company owns IPR and has branded products which also distinguishes it from the assessee and, therefore, keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

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

10B(3) of Income Tax Rules. However, since this adjustment was not possible, therefore, this company should not have been included in the list of comparables. Further, we find that the company owns IPR and has branded products which also distinguishes it from the assessee and, therefore, keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation and losses of the unit, the income from which was not eligible for deduction under Section 10A cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under Section 10A. Referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) it was held as under: - “2. Section

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation and losses of the unit, the income from which was not eligible for deduction under Section 10A cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under Section 10A. Referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) it was held as under: - “2. Section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed section 32(2) for computing its income whereas the income from profit and gains of the business or profession should be computed as per section 29 of the Act and in accordance with the provisions of section 30 to 43C. The Assessing Officer also referred to section 10B

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RIVIERA HOME FURNISHING (P) LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Vs. Acit, Range-15, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Dcit, Circle-15(1), Room No. Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, 412, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Department By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2016 Order

10B of the Act. Therefore, applying the provisions of section 14A, resulting in duplicating the exercise, is not called for. We, therefore, incline to uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard and dismiss the ground no. 2 for both the assessment years. Opus Software Solutions Private Limited Vs. ACIT(supra

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

10B(8) being an\nexemption provision not being liable to be compared\nwith Section 32(1)(ii-a) and which was concerned with a\nclaim for additional depreciation

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

depreciation. 20.2 With a view to rationalize the existing tax incentives in respect of such units, sub-section (6) in sections 10A and 10B

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FABSTRACT CLOTHING INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

10B of the Act stating that the appellant has not commenced the production during the year under Consideration. I find that the assessee company was incorporated in the year 1999 and has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of garments since then, at its premises C-57, Hosiery Complex, Phase-II, Extention. Noida. The appellant

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer has taken the view that the deduction u/s 10B was allowable after deducting unabsorbed brought forward depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer has taken the view that the deduction u/s 10B was allowable after deducting unabsorbed brought forward depreciation

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer has taken the view that the deduction u/s 10B was allowable after deducting unabsorbed brought forward depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer has taken the view that the deduction u/s 10B was allowable after deducting unabsorbed brought forward depreciation

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

section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled

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

section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled