NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishintt Data Global Delivery Vs. Dcit, Services Ltd, Circle-13(1), No. 17, South End Road, New Delhi Bangalore Pan: Aabck7777J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10 A of the income tax act in the return of income With respect to 9 different units of the assessee aggregating to INR 13 28 795 619/–. The claim of the assessee was examined by the assessing officer, wherein, he held that the disallowance

CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,HISSAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

section 139(4C)(e) of the Act, as the assessee had failed to file its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which was mandatory for claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and therefore the exemption claimed u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act was not allowable. The AO, thereafter, disallowed

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

10 (5B) – and the interpretation placed on Section 17 (2) read with other provisions which disallow payments made on behalf

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

10 (5B) – and the interpretation placed on Section 17 (2) read with other provisions which disallow payments made on behalf

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

10 (5B) – and the interpretation placed on Section 17 (2) read with other provisions which disallow payments made on behalf

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, if any, was to be restricted to the amount(s) remaining payable as on the last day of the relevant previous year. Relevant findings of the Tribunal in this regard are reproduced as under: 10

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

section 5 and the third proviso thereto: "5. This Act shall apply to every business of which any part of the profits made during the chargeable accounting period is Mr. Nikhil Sawhney chargeable to income-tax by virtue of the provisions of sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act.‖ (Emphasis supplied) Appeal filed by the department against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal before the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 09.10.2018. 1.34 In the case of Netesoft India Ltd vs. DCIT: 5359/Mum/2017, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, following the decision in the case

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

10(34)) • Some administrative expense must have been incurred in • holding/managing the dividend-yielding shares A proportionate disallowance of Rs. 5 lakh (20% of dividend) is • Revenue's Legal Arguments-While acknowledging CIT(A)'s correct II. analysis of Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

10(34)) • Some administrative expense must have been incurred in • holding/managing the dividend-yielding shares A proportionate disallowance of Rs. 5 lakh (20% of dividend) is • Revenue's Legal Arguments-While acknowledging CIT(A)'s correct II. analysis of Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

10(34)) • Some administrative expense must have been incurred in • holding/managing the dividend-yielding shares A proportionate disallowance of Rs. 5 lakh (20% of dividend) is • Revenue's Legal Arguments-While acknowledging CIT(A)'s correct II. analysis of Section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

disallowance and for reasons given by us above Ground No 4 is allowed. Accordingly, the issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the assessee. IN REGARD TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE : ITA 1750/Del/2018 : GROUND NO. 1 7. Ld. DR submitted that at one end assessee is taking benefit of Section 10

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

disallowance and for reasons given by us above Ground No 4 is allowed. Accordingly, the issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the assessee. IN REGARD TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE : ITA 1750/Del/2018 : GROUND NO. 1 7. Ld. DR submitted that at one end assessee is taking benefit of Section 10

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

10(38) which is applicable to LTCG. The Id. A.O. held that the assessee is deriving income from General Insurance Business and also from other business. Therefore, the first category of Income is governed by section 44 of the Income Tax Act whereas second category is covered under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The same was held

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section (10) existed at that time, nor such a proviso can be applied as we are dealing with an international transaction and not specified domestic transaction. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order upholding the invocation of sub-sec. (10) of sec. 80IA cannot be countenanced to this extent. Ergo, it is held that

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section (10) existed at that time, nor such a proviso can be applied as we are dealing with an international transaction and not specified domestic transaction. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order upholding the invocation of sub-sec. (10) of sec. 80IA cannot be countenanced to this extent. Ergo, it is held that

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

section In the assessment order, the assessing officer proportionately allocated following expenses to the eligible 80IB(10) of the projects in ratio or sales and consequently proposed disallowance

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 NEW DELHI vs. M/S HESPERA REALTY PVT. LTD.

Section 10(38) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of ₹2,47,52,73,951/-. However