DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: Us.

747 Restricted to available surplus 102,644,155 ---------------- Taxable income NIL ==========” On the basis of the above working, it was claimed that the entire income was exempt under Section 11. In particular it was pointed out that the claim of depreciation

M/S. TECHNICO AGRI SCIENCES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

747/- on the total pre-operative expenditure of Rs. 2,57,95,922/- (incurred by the appellant company before 14 September 2000 i.e. the date of commencement of commercial production) allocated to fixed assets. 3. That the learned CIT (A) also failed to appreciate that complete details as asked were provided to the learned AO. That a specific offer

M/S TECHNICO AGRI SCIENCES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

747/- on the total pre-operative expenditure of Rs. 2,57,95,922/- (incurred by the appellant company before 14 September 2000 i.e. the date of commencement of commercial production) allocated to fixed assets. 3. That the learned CIT (A) also failed to appreciate that complete details as asked were provided to the learned AO. That a specific offer

M/S. TECHNICO AGRI SCIENCES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

747/- on the total pre-operative expenditure of Rs. 2,57,95,922/- (incurred by the appellant company before 14 September 2000 i.e. the date of commencement of commercial production) allocated to fixed assets. 3. That the learned CIT (A) also failed to appreciate that complete details as asked were provided to the learned AO. That a specific offer

M/S. TECHNICO AGRI SCIENCES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

747/- on the total pre-operative expenditure of Rs. 2,57,95,922/- (incurred by the appellant company before 14 September 2000 i.e. the date of commencement of commercial production) allocated to fixed assets. 3. That the learned CIT (A) also failed to appreciate that complete details as asked were provided to the learned AO. That a specific offer

M/S. TECHNICO AGRI SCIENCES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

747/- on the total pre-operative expenditure of Rs. 2,57,95,922/- (incurred by the appellant company before 14 September 2000 i.e. the date of commencement of commercial production) allocated to fixed assets. 3. That the learned CIT (A) also failed to appreciate that complete details as asked were provided to the learned AO. That a specific offer

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3423/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) M/S Dabur India Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, New Delhi Range-10 (Appellant) New Delhi (Respondent)

depreciation under Income-tax Act and has duly allocated to various units. Similarly, selling and distribution expenses of Rs. 789.37 lakhs was suo moto disallowed in the computation of income, the sales tax expenses of Rs. 135.78 lakhs which does not have any impact on profit cannot be allocated to the eligible units. The miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 566.79 lakhs

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3423/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) M/S Dabur India Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, New Delhi Range-10 (Appellant) New Delhi (Respondent)

depreciation under Income-tax Act and has duly allocated to various units. Similarly, selling and distribution expenses of Rs. 789.37 lakhs was suo moto disallowed in the computation of income, the sales tax expenses of Rs. 135.78 lakhs which does not have any impact on profit cannot be allocated to the eligible units. The miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 566.79 lakhs

MARK EXHAUST SYSTEMS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Mark Exhaust Systems Ltd. Vs Dcit, 606, Vishal Bhawan, 95 Nehru Circle-16(1), Place, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi Pan-Aaacm1497Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Sood, Ca Respondent By Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2021

depreciation on interest of Rs. 1,29,63,747/- held to be capitalized by the A.O. 4. THAT in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance , made by AO, out of subscription and membership expenses of Rs. 3,62,992/-. 5. THAT the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend

M/S. PEETHAMBRA GRANITES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 1188/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09

747/-. The return was processed under section 143 (1) of the act and the case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the act was issued to assessee. In compliance to the statutory notices, representative of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed replies and documents. 2. Ld.AO observed that assessee is in the business

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishia N D Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 14A of the Act by erroneously holding that the appellant cannot earn dividend income without incurring administrative expenses. 4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the appellant’s claim, amounting to Rs.13,08,609/-for consequential depreciation on leasehold improvements capitalized in earlier years

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

747 of convenience compendium. Also decision of coordinate bench in Samsung India Electronics (refer paras 43 & 44 on pages 553 and 554 of convenience compendium) while dealing with similar facts directly supports present appellant's contentions. Corporate Tax issues As already submitted only 3 corporate tax issues survive-Ground 7. no's 22 to 24 relating to depreciation - issue covered

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

747 of convenience compendium. Also decision of coordinate bench in Samsung India Electronics (refer paras 43 & 44 on pages 553 and 554 of convenience compendium) while dealing with similar facts directly supports present appellant's contentions. Corporate Tax issues As already submitted only 3 corporate tax issues survive-Ground 7. no's 22 to 24 relating to depreciation - issue covered

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the above, the decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra) would support the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. In view of the totality of above facts, we are unable to uphold the view of the TPO that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SANDUR BYPASS PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is allowed

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

depreciation to the tune of Rs.19,97,747/-, Rs.38,56,433/- & Rs.2,56,048/- respectively and thereby assessed the total income at Rs.3,86,728/-. 3 ITA No.1973/Del./2017 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing appeal who has quashed the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act on the ground that

BINDAL SMELTING (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri At Varkeyay: 2010-11 Bindal Smelting P.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 3(1) 987, 1St Floor, Hardhiyan Singh Road New Delhi Karolbagh New Delhi 110 005

depreciation and further accepted the book profit @ Rs.84,39,655/- for the purposes of section 115 JB. 3. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority held that the A.O. has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80 IB of the Act on the amount of addition of Rs.40,48,009/- on account of shortage of stock

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\N\Nita No. 4477/Del/2024\N[Assessment Year: 2020-21]\N\N| Genpact Services Llc,\Nplot 22A & B, Sector 18,\Nudyog Vihar,\Ngurgaon, Haryana-122002\Npan-Aaccg3353P\Nappellant\N|\Nassistant Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-International Tax-1(3)(1),\Nvs Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\N| Appellant By\Nshri Vishal Kalra, Adv.,\Nms. Reema Malik, Adv.& Ms.\Nsnigdha Gautam, Adv.\Nrespondent By\Nshri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N30.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N31.07.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The\Nassessing Officer Dated 29.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act') In Pursuance To The\Ndirections Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 25.06.2024 Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2020-21.\N2. The Relevant Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Indian Branch Office Of\Ngenpact Llc, A Usa Company. The Assessee Is A Service Provider\Nrendering Off-Shore Support Services Akin To Bpo Services, Including\Ncollections/Analytics Call Centre Services & Other Back-Office Support\Nservices To Its Aes. The Assessee Is Responsible For Rendering The\Ndesignated Bpo / Collections Services From Its Facility / Infrastructure In\Nindia. As For Assessment Year 2020-21, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of\Nincome (Roi') Declaring An Income Of Inr 20,57,10,540/- On 07.01.2021.\Nduring The Course Of Scrutiny, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S\N92Ca Of The Act To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo') To Determine The\Narm'S Length Price (‘Alp') In Respect Of International Transaction Entered\Ninto By The Assessee.\N2.

747 18,99,509 18,99,509 18,99,509 21,03,676 21,03,676 21,03,676 18,96,069 18,96,069 18,96,069\non to\nCWIL

ACIT, CC-01, NEW DELHI vs. HARISONS DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

section 115BBE of the Act as amended by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. (iv) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that substitution of provisions by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 was not retrospective in nature but was prospective and only application from financial year 2017-18 relevant

HARISONS DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-1, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

section 115BBE of the Act as amended by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. (iv) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that substitution of provisions by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 was not retrospective in nature but was prospective and only application from financial year 2017-18 relevant