CONNAUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-73(1), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

201(3) of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that tax on Common Area Maintenance Charges (‘CAM charges’), paid by the appellant to the lessor, was liable to be deducted under section 194I as against tax deducted under section 194C

NOKIA INDIA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7244/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 807, New Delhi House, Special Range-6, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn9141L Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surenderpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

depreciation on the written down value of the FOC phones treated as capital assets in the case of NEPL in earlier AYs, where in the impugned assessment order, the Ld. AO has himself stated that the issues examined in the case of NEPL shall continue to be applicable in the Appellant’s case as well, purportedly being the successor

M/S BHARTI HEXACOM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and department’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra: & Shri A.T. Varkey:

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee ahs deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.” 46. This proviso, though applicable from 1.4.2013 but primarily deals with procedural aspects and, therefore, will

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

depreciable assets but for all the tangible and intangible assets including goodwill, licenses and liabilities. ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 13 of 22 (vii) As per the terms of transfer, since no part of consideration was attributable even to land and building, plant or machinery hence it was a case of slump sale and not a case

M/S. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L. P. Sahu.

201(1) of the Act in both the assessment years. The same are upheld. ” 5. The learned CIT [DR], however, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. On consideration of the rival submissions in the light of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 30th January, 2017 14 I. T. Appeal No. 4721/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2009–10. (supra

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

depreciable assets only but for transferring the entire unit as a whole and the sale consideration settled between the parties was 2010:DHC:6300-DB (vii) As per the terms of transfer, since no part of consideration was attributable even to land and building, plant or machinery hence it was a case of slump sale and not a case

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:

depreciation @ 60%. 29. Next issue vide Ground No. 12 relates to the disallowance of Rs.16,90,576/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 30. The fact related to this issue in brief are that the assessee during the year under consideration earned dividend income of Rs.2,44,84,377/- from investment held

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:

depreciation @ 60%. 29. Next issue vide Ground No. 12 relates to the disallowance of Rs.16,90,576/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 30. The fact related to this issue in brief are that the assessee during the year under consideration earned dividend income of Rs.2,44,84,377/- from investment held

HINDUSTAN PLYWOOD COMPANY (REGD.),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

section 201(1) on account of payment of taxes by the payee, the, for the purpose of allowing deduction of such sum, it shall be deemed that the assessee had deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee. These beneficial provisions are proposed to be applicable only

DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

201(1) of the Act during the subject year, in accordance with first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3. Disallowance of Customer Acquisition Cost 13 ITA No.4150 /Del/2017 & Ors. Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order

DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

201(1) of the Act during the subject year, in accordance with first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3. Disallowance of Customer Acquisition Cost 13 ITA No.4150 /Del/2017 & Ors. Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

201(1) of the Act during the subject year, in accordance with first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3. Disallowance of Customer Acquisition Cost 13 ITA No.4150 /Del/2017 & Ors. Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

201(1) of the Act during the subject year, in accordance with first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3. Disallowance of Customer Acquisition Cost 13 ITA No.4150 /Del/2017 & Ors. Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

201(1) of the Act during the subject year, in accordance with first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3. Disallowance of Customer Acquisition Cost 13 ITA No.4150 /Del/2017 & Ors. Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

201(1) of the Act during the subject year, in accordance with first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3. Disallowance of Customer Acquisition Cost 13 ITA No.4150 /Del/2017 & Ors. Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

201(1) of the Act during the subject year, in accordance with first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3. Disallowance of Customer Acquisition Cost 13 ITA No.4150 /Del/2017 & Ors. Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

201(1) of the Act during the subject year, in accordance with first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3. Disallowance of Customer Acquisition Cost 13 ITA No.4150 /Del/2017 & Ors. Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order

ACIT CIRCLE 25(1) , DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. , DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

201(1) of the Act during the subject year, in accordance with first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3. Disallowance of Customer Acquisition Cost 13 ITA No.4150 /Del/2017 & Ors. Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order

M/S. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Section 201. M/s Bharti Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT 6. That the AO erred on facts and in law in not allowing the set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation