COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

4, 6 and 7), the State Bank of India Act, 1955 [Section 6(1)(g)], the State Bank Subsidiaries Banks Act, 1959 [Section 10(1)], the Backing Regulation Act. 1949 [Section 36AE(1)] and there have been legislative provisions for acquisition of some of these undertakings.” 18. Taking note of the various pronouncements in Para 164, the Supreme Court further

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

4, 6 and 7), the State Bank of India Act, 1955 [Section 6(1)(g)], the State Bank Subsidiaries Banks Act, 1959 [Section 10(1)], the Backing Regulation Act. 1949 [Section 36AE(1)] and there have been legislative provisions for acquisition of some of these undertakings.” 18. Taking note of the various pronouncements in Para 164, the Supreme Court further

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

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

45) of the Income-tax Act defines total income as ―the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act‖. Section 4 provides for charge of income-tax. Section 5 defines the scope of total income. Section 5 (1) states that subject to the provisions of the Act, the total income

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

4) has to be worked out. In regard to admission of additional evidence by the ld. CIT(A), the ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not furnish the evidence before the AO in assessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in admitting the additional evidence. Ample opportunity was given to the assessee. The assessee

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

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

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

45,787 ii) Nagpur 4,86,90,981 iii) Coimbatore 4,39,95,190 iv) Uppal 8,25,79,324 Total 225,97,11,282 20. It was argued that the taxable business income of the undertaking has been computed independently and only thereafter taxable business income of the company has been computed. Relying on various decisions, it was argued

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

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

4) of section 80-IB of the Act read with notification No. SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999.” ITA No.5511/Del./2012 (AY : 2007-08) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, ('CIT') under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond

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

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

4) of section 80-IB of the Act read with notification No. SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999.” ITA No.5511/Del./2012 (AY : 2007-08) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, ('CIT') under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond

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

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

4) of section 80-IB of the Act read with notification No. SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999.” ITA No.5511/Del./2012 (AY : 2007-08) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, ('CIT') under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond

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

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

4) of section 80-IB of the Act read with notification No. SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999.” ITA No.5511/Del./2012 (AY : 2007-08) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, ('CIT') under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond

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

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

4) of section 80-IB of the Act read with notification No. SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999.” ITA No.5511/Del./2012 (AY : 2007-08) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, ('CIT') under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond

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

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

4) of section 80-IB of the Act read with notification No. SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999.” ITA No.5511/Del./2012 (AY : 2007-08) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, ('CIT') under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond

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

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

4) of section 80-IB of the Act read with notification No. SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999.” ITA No.5511/Del./2012 (AY : 2007-08) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, ('CIT') under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond

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

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

AJAY GULIYA

section 45 implicitly. The reason for lack of the year in latter provision is that all sums accruing or received in connection with transfer are liable to be taxed in the year in which transfer takes place. With these preliminary remarks, we may examine the cases relied upon by the ld. counsel. 6.2 In the case of CIT Vs. Ashokbhai