CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation under Section 32(2), the unabsorbed investment allowance under section 32A(3)(ii), the unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research under section 35(4

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”, for short) on 28.12.2011 in which total income was determined at Rs. 2,16,95,055/- as against the returned income of Rs. Page 4 of 39 ITA No.- 4373/Del/2012. Ramit Vohra. 36,20,086/-; as per following computation: S.No Description Amount 1. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY

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

4. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 17. The ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the TPO. He submitted that the TPO, after considering FAR analysis has selected those comparables

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

4. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 17. The ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the TPO. He submitted that the TPO, after considering FAR analysis has selected those comparables

DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EBIX SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

depreciation of assets of Noida DTA is placed at page 152 of the Paper Book. At this juncture, it is stated that deduction has been claimed under section 10AA of the Act in respect of the four units eligible for the deduction and details of the set up of the units and the status thereof is tabulated as under: claimed

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 263 of the Act in respect of the issue of excess claim of depreciation, overriding the principle of merger applicable to parallel authorities, as the said issue was already under consideration before CIT(A)-XV vide appeal filed on 19.01.2010. 4

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 263 of the Act in respect of the issue of excess claim of depreciation, overriding the principle of merger applicable to parallel authorities, as the said issue was already under consideration before CIT(A)-XV vide appeal filed on 19.01.2010. 4

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 263 of the Act in respect of the issue of excess claim of depreciation, overriding the principle of merger applicable to parallel authorities, as the said issue was already under consideration before CIT(A)-XV vide appeal filed on 19.01.2010. 4

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 263 of the Act in respect of the issue of excess claim of depreciation, overriding the principle of merger applicable to parallel authorities, as the said issue was already under consideration before CIT(A)-XV vide appeal filed on 19.01.2010. 4

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 263 of the Act in respect of the issue of excess claim of depreciation, overriding the principle of merger applicable to parallel authorities, as the said issue was already under consideration before CIT(A)-XV vide appeal filed on 19.01.2010. 4

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 263 of the Act in respect of the issue of excess claim of depreciation, overriding the principle of merger applicable to parallel authorities, as the said issue was already under consideration before CIT(A)-XV vide appeal filed on 19.01.2010. 4

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 263 of the Act in respect of the issue of excess claim of depreciation, overriding the principle of merger applicable to parallel authorities, as the said issue was already under consideration before CIT(A)-XV vide appeal filed on 19.01.2010. 4

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. The Special Bench ruling in Biocon Ltd. (supra) considered the matter rather elaborately and also examined all the previous decisions. It scrutinised different accounts of ESOPs and the points of time when they could have vested. The observations of the Special Bench in this regard, inter alia, are as follows (page 623 of 25 ITR (Trib)) : "When we consider

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. The Special Bench ruling in Biocon Ltd. (supra) considered the matter rather elaborately and also examined all the previous decisions. It scrutinised different accounts of ESOPs and the points of time when they could have vested. The observations of the Special Bench in this regard, inter alia, are as follows (page 623 of 25 ITR (Trib)) : "When we consider

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 under sub-section (2) of section 32 or subsection (4) of section 35. Sub section (3) of section 72 provides

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

4); the six deductions as referred to in section 80AC must necessarily be claimed in the return filed u/s 139(1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes automatically allowable without adhering to the requirement of section 80A(5), is bereft of force and hence dismissed

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

depreciation etc. came into force. 14. The rationale behind both sub-section (4) and sub-section (6) is not far to seek

BSC C&C JV,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Bsc C&C Joint Venture, Vs. Acit, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Circle-62(1), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfb8115G Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2025

depreciation is made in the return, filing of Form 3AA is directory in nature. In our considered opinion, we hold that the decision of G M Knitting supra does not come to the rescue of the assessee herein as it is factually distinguishable as the assessee herein had not made a claim of deduction under section 80IA(4