DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

Section 92B of the Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002. Therefore, interest charged/not charged on outstanding receivables is an international transaction. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-2, Pune Vs Patni Computers System Pvt. Ltd. reported at 215 Taxman 108 (Mum.). The reliance was also placed

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED vs. ADDL. CIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

ACIT, HISAR vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

OSTTRA INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), CR BUILDING, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 Osttra India Services Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Limited Lgf.A-16/9 Vasant Of Income Tax, Circle Vihar, South-West Delhi, New 1991) Cr Building, Delhi Delhi 110057 Pan No. Aaocm6253C (Appellant) (Respondent)

138(1) of the Act for A.Y.2022-23. 4. That the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the ld. JCIT(A) has erred in considering the due of filing return of income in case of the appellant as 7 November 2022 without appreciating the fact the actual due date of 30 November 2022 as the explanation 2 to section

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on UPS shall be allowed @ 30%. 30. In AY 2005-06, in assessee’s own case, the same issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. 31. In our considered view, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee, hence the order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld on this issue. 32. Another issue raised

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on UPS shall be allowed @ 30%. 30. In AY 2005-06, in assessee’s own case, the same issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. 31. In our considered view, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee, hence the order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld on this issue. 32. Another issue raised

ADDL. CIT,SPL RNAGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on UPS shall be allowed @ 30%. 30. In AY 2005-06, in assessee’s own case, the same issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. 31. In our considered view, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee, hence the order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld on this issue. 32. Another issue raised

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on UPS shall be allowed @ 30%. 30. In AY 2005-06, in assessee’s own case, the same issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. 31. In our considered view, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee, hence the order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld on this issue. 32. Another issue raised

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on UPS shall be allowed @ 30%. 30. In AY 2005-06, in assessee’s own case, the same issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. 31. In our considered view, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee, hence the order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld on this issue. 32. Another issue raised

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on UPS shall be allowed @ 30%. 30. In AY 2005-06, in assessee’s own case, the same issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. 31. In our considered view, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee, hence the order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld on this issue. 32. Another issue raised

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on UPS shall be allowed @ 30%. 30. In AY 2005-06, in assessee’s own case, the same issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. 31. In our considered view, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee, hence the order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld on this issue. 32. Another issue raised

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on UPS shall be allowed @ 30%. 30. In AY 2005-06, in assessee’s own case, the same issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. 31. In our considered view, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee, hence the order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld on this issue. 32. Another issue raised

M/S. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

section 37 of the Act. Hence the Appellant is entitled to relief of Rs.12,65,54,992/-. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) while withdrawing depreciation of Rs.1,56,34,104/- ought to have allowed deduction of Rs.12,65,54,992/- being the loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuations attributable