ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HAL OFFSHORE LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Section 195, 44BB, 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the Circular 3/2015 of CBDT pertaining to “other some chargeable under this Act” give rise to the sum chargeable of Rs.295,287/-. Hence, the disallowance is limited to the extent of Rs.295,287/- being the 10% of the deemed profits of the recipient company. 15. The solitary ground taken

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation on producing facilities @ 5.28% on straight line method, thereby making adjustment of Rs.180,40,27,029 to the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that the transactions of reimbursement of Rs.2,00,40,842, Manpower, general and administrative

DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PERSONIV CONTACT CENTRES INDIA PVT LTD ( FORMELY KNOWN AS JOHN KEELS BPO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

depreciation claimed. 4. Against this order, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). On the issue of addition of Rs.2,50,67,848/- u/s 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of TDS, ld. CIT (A) noted the submissions of the assessee. He found that the appeal was instituted on similar facts for AY 2013-14 which

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the alternate claim of the appellant for deduction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the alternate claim of the appellant for deduction

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

depreciation under section 32(l)(iia) of the Act. 43. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing deduction of Rs. 7,59,98,664/- claimed under section 80IA of the Act in respect of captive power generating unit situated at Gurgaon. 43.1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in computing income

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), 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:

195 (Delhi) and some other decisions to bring home his point of view of not carrying out any adjustment on account of difference in depreciation. 5.13. There can be no dispute on the principle that calculation of ‘Operating profit’ as envisaged under Rule 10B(1)(e) embraces cumulative effect of all the items of income and expenses which

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:

195 (Delhi) and some other decisions to bring home his point of view of not carrying out any adjustment on account of difference in depreciation. 5.13. There can be no dispute on the principle that calculation of ‘Operating profit’ as envisaged under Rule 10B(1)(e) embraces cumulative effect of all the items of income and expenses which

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD.,, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamblesteria India Ltd. (Estwhile Vs Acit Xansa India Ltd.) Circle-18(1) Seaview Special Economic New Delhi Zone, Building 4, Plot No. 20 & (Respondent) 21, Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar Noida Aaacx0385L (Appellant) Dcit Vs Xansa India Ltd. Circle-18(1) (Now Known As Steria India Ltd.,) New Delhi C-2, Sector-1 (Appellant) Noida Aaacx0385L (Respondent)

195 of the income tax act and held that this payment of subsistence allowance is only a reimbursement of expenditure which is not chargeable to tax in India and hence no withholding tax was required to be deducted from such payment and hence provisions of section 40a(i) does not apply. Even otherwise he held that such payment of subsistence

STERIA INDIA LTD. (ESTWHILE XANSA INDIA LTD.),NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamblesteria India Ltd. (Estwhile Vs Acit Xansa India Ltd.) Circle-18(1) Seaview Special Economic New Delhi Zone, Building 4, Plot No. 20 & (Respondent) 21, Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar Noida Aaacx0385L (Appellant) Dcit Vs Xansa India Ltd. Circle-18(1) (Now Known As Steria India Ltd.,) New Delhi C-2, Sector-1 (Appellant) Noida Aaacx0385L (Respondent)

195 of the income tax act and held that this payment of subsistence allowance is only a reimbursement of expenditure which is not chargeable to tax in India and hence no withholding tax was required to be deducted from such payment and hence provisions of section 40a(i) does not apply. Even otherwise he held that such payment of subsistence

ACIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation and allowed deduction for an amount of Rs.32,29,19,988/- in terms of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 section 115JB of the Act. While deciding assessee’s appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere. 4. Before

GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation and allowed deduction for an amount of Rs.32,29,19,988/- in terms of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 section 115JB of the Act. While deciding assessee’s appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere. 4. Before

ACIT CIRCLE- 10(1) , NEW DELHI vs. GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LTD , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation and allowed deduction for an amount of Rs.32,29,19,988/- in terms of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 section 115JB of the Act. While deciding assessee’s appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere. 4. Before

ACIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation and allowed deduction for an amount of Rs.32,29,19,988/- in terms of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 section 115JB of the Act. While deciding assessee’s appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere. 4. Before

ACIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation and allowed deduction for an amount of Rs.32,29,19,988/- in terms of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 section 115JB of the Act. While deciding assessee’s appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere. 4. Before

ACIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation and allowed deduction for an amount of Rs.32,29,19,988/- in terms of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 section 115JB of the Act. While deciding assessee’s appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere. 4. Before

ACIT CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation and allowed deduction for an amount of Rs.32,29,19,988/- in terms of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 section 115JB of the Act. While deciding assessee’s appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere. 4. Before

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. M/S LUFTHANSA CARGO INDIA P .

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

195(1). The AO rejected the assessee's plea that the payments for repairs were incurred for earning income from sources outside India and therefore, the case fell within the exclusionary clause of Section 9(1)(vii)(b). The AO further rejected the assessee's plea that the business of aircraft leasing was carried on outside India. The assessee