PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

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 on such software license was to be claimed @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the Appellant. 12. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making a disallowance of notional expenditure of Rs. 16,90,576 per provisions of section 14A of the Act read with rule

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 on such software license was to be claimed @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the Appellant. 12. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making a disallowance of notional expenditure of Rs. 16,90,576 per provisions of section 14A of the Act read with rule

ACIT(E),CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. DIVYA JYOTI JAGRATI SANSTHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

section 115BBC. 9. As regards disallowance of depreciation as application of income, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (E) vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society (2015) 53 taxmann.com 463 (Delhi) wherein the assessee has been held to be allowed for 9 depreciation for religious institution also. He further noted that this issue

HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD. ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

depreciation on the carrying value of the Signage expenditure which was capitalised by the AO during the previous assessment proceedings for A Y 2012-13 to 2015-16. Re: Sales tools Expenses -INR 1,34,45,919/- 11. That the AO/DRP grossly erred in disallowing an amount of INR 1,34,45,919/- being sales tools expenses under section

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

depreciation on the same should be allowed to the Appellant. 8. Short-grant of credit for taxes deducted at source 8.1. On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not granting complete credit of taxes deducted at source to the Appellant. 9. Levy of interest under section 234B and 234C

ITO(E), WARD-1(4), NEW DELHI vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST (REGD)), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

depreciation if admissible, in accordance with law. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Ld CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O 2 Mehta Charitable Prajanalaya Trust to allow deduction under section 80G

MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimax New York Life Insurance Vs. Dcit, Company Ltd, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi Plot No. 90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a joint venture between Max India Ltd and New York Life insurance International Holding Ltd. The assessee filed the return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring income of Rs. 4741955000/-. The assessment was made on 29.12.2016 determining the total income of Rs. 9536768000/-. The income

JCIT(OSD), NEW DELHI vs. STATESTREET CORPORATE SERVICES DELHI PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in:

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 10AA of the IT. Act, 1961. Accordingly grounds 3, 3.1. 3.2 and 3.3 are adjudicated in favour of the appellant." 9. Thus, on the basis of precedence as available, in the form of my own appeal order for A.Y. 2013-14, I adjudicate this issue in favour of the appellant.” 8. In view of the finding of Ld.CIT

JCIT(OSD), NEW DELHI vs. STATESTREET CORPORATE SERVICES DELHI PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in:

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 10AA of the IT. Act, 1961. Accordingly grounds 3, 3.1. 3.2 and 3.3 are adjudicated in favour of the appellant." 9. Thus, on the basis of precedence as available, in the form of my own appeal order for A.Y. 2013-14, I adjudicate this issue in favour of the appellant.” 8. In view of the finding of Ld.CIT

JCIT OSD, NEW DELHI vs. STATESTREET CORPORATE SERVICES DELHI PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in:

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 10AA of the IT. Act, 1961. Accordingly grounds 3, 3.1. 3.2 and 3.3 are adjudicated in favour of the appellant." 9. Thus, on the basis of precedence as available, in the form of my own appeal order for A.Y. 2013-14, I adjudicate this issue in favour of the appellant.” 8. In view of the finding of Ld.CIT

DCIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. GOODEARTH FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal Nos

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(E), Vs. Goodearth Foundation, Circle-1(1), Eicher House, Civic Centre, 12, Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatg5663R

80G vide order dated 15th July, 2009. The society was established with the object of setting up or acquiring and running an institution or institutions for education for the benefit of the public. It filed its return of income on 28th September, 2010 disclosing nil income. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, observed that the assessee

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

M/S MEGASOFT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 80G of the Income Tax .Act, 1961. This fact has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A) and has provided no opportunity to assessee company to explain the same. 12. That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on not adjudicating that the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in initiating penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income

HARI OM SEWA DAL,ROHTAK vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicia Member

depreciation on the land which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. In our considered opinion, this is not relevant consideration at the time of grant of registration. It is the issue to be examined during the course of assessment proceedings after grant of registration under Section 12AA of the Act. In this connection, it is relevant to mention

M/S. FRIENDS CHARITABLE SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri N.K Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 11 to 13 of the Act and learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) has also confirmed the view taken by Assessing officer. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax ( Appeals) has also erred on facts and in law to confirm the disallowance made by 3 ITA No. 3298/Del/2015. M/s Friends Charitable Society. Assessing officer

SANSKRITI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

80G of the Act. It is also not in dispute that during the year under assessment, assessee trust earned income from school fee, bank interest and other miscellaneous income. Assessee claimed depreciation on assets of Rs. 2,34,01,317/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2,22,52,237/- for AY 2012-13. 8. AO as well

SANSKRITI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

80G of the Act. It is also not in dispute that during the year under assessment, assessee trust earned income from school fee, bank interest and other miscellaneous income. Assessee claimed depreciation on assets of Rs. 2,34,01,317/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2,22,52,237/- for AY 2012-13. 8. AO as well

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

80G (Rs.22,30,000) Net loss adjusted by A.O with current year (Rs.4,67,99,123) profits On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in adjusting the losses of earlier assessment years pertaining to Baddi Unit and Haridwar Unit while computing deduction under section 80-IC of the Act in the year under consideration