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)

disallowance of deduction under section 10 A, is required to be made on other income and miscellaneous income of the assessee. Accordingly, he held that INR 24 4340 5880/– is other income, though it can be assessed as the business income of the assessee. However same cannot be said to be the income derived from export-oriented undertaking. Therefore

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]

disallowance of Rs.25,47,64,090/- by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO and denying the exemption despite the fact that

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)

10. In ITA No 5636 /del /2014 the above issues on merits have been decided by the coordinate bench vide order dated 11/03/2014 as under :- “29. In ground no. 6, the assessee has raised the following grievance: 11. "6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing under section

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

12. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Ganesh, and other counsel, i.e Shri Rakesh Gupta, and Shri Salil Kapoor emphasized the phraseology of Section 10(10CC) and argued that the expressions calling for interpretation are "a perquisite, not provided for by way of monetary payment". Likewise, what are "provided for by way of” has to be construed

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

12. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Ganesh, and other counsel, i.e Shri Rakesh Gupta, and Shri Salil Kapoor emphasized the phraseology of Section 10(10CC) and argued that the expressions calling for interpretation are "a perquisite, not provided for by way of monetary payment". Likewise, what are "provided for by way of” has to be construed

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

12. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Ganesh, and other counsel, i.e Shri Rakesh Gupta, and Shri Salil Kapoor emphasized the phraseology of Section 10(10CC) and argued that the expressions calling for interpretation are "a perquisite, not provided for by way of monetary payment". Likewise, what are "provided for by way of” has to be construed

SUNSHINE EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

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

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

12 ITA No.4727/Del./2017 reasons have been given by the ld. CIT(A) to tax the entire receipts:- (i) Since the assessee is eligible for exemption under specific provision of Section 10(23C) then it cannot avail exemption under the general provision of Section 11; (ii) Income derived by the assessee from its activity of running school cannot said

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

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

Section 10(38) of the Act. However, the matter needs to be restored to the files of the Ld. AO to enquire that claim of assessee u/s 10(38), fulfills the desired conditions about payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT).” Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and Ld. AO is directed to verify about the status

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

Section 10(38) of the Act. However, the matter needs to be restored to the files of the Ld. AO to enquire that claim of assessee u/s 10(38), fulfills the desired conditions about payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT).” Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and Ld. AO is directed to verify about the status

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 of deduction Rs.3,59,98,438 for all nine Act on account projects. However, considering that out of the 9 projects, the assessing officer had already disallowed the of proportionate entire claim

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)

12 | P a g e referred to therein. The third proviso does not use that language and what learned counsel for the appellant is seeking to do is to alter the language of the proviso to make it read as though it excluded business the income, profits or gains of which accrue or arise in an Indian State. The difficulty

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

12,37,16,049/- under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also computed book loss at Rs.2,18,28,09,334/- u/s. 115JB of the Act after making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Profit on sale of investments - Rs. 10,27,94,88,259/- Interest not recognized as (b) Income - Rs. 80,52,21,000/- (c) Disallowance

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

10,39,2583 [sic in original document]). The assessee's explanation (differing finalization dates) was unsatisfactory . Revenue's Arguments: Proposition A: "Reimbursement" Is Not a II. Statutory Category of Deduction: A fundamental principle of tax law is that deductions are permitted only if authorized by statute. Section 37 allows deduction of "any expenditure wholly and exclusively laid

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

10,39,2583 [sic in original document]). The assessee's explanation (differing finalization dates) was unsatisfactory . Revenue's Arguments: Proposition A: "Reimbursement" Is Not a II. Statutory Category of Deduction: A fundamental principle of tax law is that deductions are permitted only if authorized by statute. Section 37 allows deduction of "any expenditure wholly and exclusively laid

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

10,39,2583 [sic in original document]). The assessee's explanation (differing finalization dates) was unsatisfactory . Revenue's Arguments: Proposition A: "Reimbursement" Is Not a II. Statutory Category of Deduction: A fundamental principle of tax law is that deductions are permitted only if authorized by statute. Section 37 allows deduction of "any expenditure wholly and exclusively laid

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12, 13 and section 12AB of the Act, wherein violations of section 13(1) of the Act are consciously excluded from the list of specified violations under the Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Act. We find that post Finance Act, 2022, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act very clearly mention that if there

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Disallowance of Deduction under section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs. 12,01,42,780/- 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in allowing weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.100,90,68,000 as against Rs.112,92,10