COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

depreciable asset, namely, the building was purchased and additions were made up to the end of the financial year 2002-03 and since the building along with furniture and fixtures were sold on 29.08.2005, within a period of 3 years, the same cannot be said to be a long term capital asset as defined in Section 2 (29A) read with

M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

depreciation adjustment) claimed by the Appellant and thus consequently arriving at an erroneous mark-up on cost for the comparable companies selected in the TP Order.” AY: 2011-12 “1. TP adjustment with respect to Business Process Outsourcing (‘BPO’) services segment from Associated Enterprises other than IBM World Trade Corporation (‘IBM WTC’) and IBM United Kingdom Ltd, (‘IBM UK’) That

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

depreciation adjustment) claimed by the Appellant and thus consequently arriving at an erroneous mark-up on cost for the comparable companies selected in the TP Order.” AY: 2011-12 “1. TP adjustment with respect to Business Process Outsourcing (‘BPO’) services segment from Associated Enterprises other than IBM World Trade Corporation (‘IBM WTC’) and IBM United Kingdom Ltd, (‘IBM UK’) That

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

depreciation merely on the submission of the assessee, thereby completely ignoring the reasons mentioned by the AO. 6. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.44,32,000/- made on account of unexplained addition in capital merely on the submission of the assessee, thereby completely ignoring the reasons mentioned by the AO. 7. That

ACIT,CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LIMITED, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Ongc Videsh Limited Circle-19(1), Tower-B5, Nelson Mandela New Delhi Marg, Vasant Kinj, New Delhi Pan : Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation. The case laws referred by ld. CIT (A) as well as the ld. counsel of assessee are germane and support the case of assessee. Hence, the order of ld.CIT (A) is upheld.” 9. Ground no. 3; Following the observations at para no. 23 to 27, reproduced herein below, in assessee’s own case

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

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

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

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

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

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

depreciation) applying proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

depreciation) applying proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

depreciation) applying proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission of additional evidence, now the substantive issues are to be decided. The same are discussed in the following paragraphs. 2.4.3 The first substantive issue is whether the appellant was correct in claiming deduction under section 108 of the Act with reference to separate and independent profits

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission of additional evidence, now the substantive issues are to be decided. The same are discussed in the following paragraphs. 2.4.3 The first substantive issue is whether the appellant was correct in claiming deduction under section 108 of the Act with reference to separate and independent profits