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]

disallowed by ld. AO 8. However, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) amounting to Rs 25,74,64,090/-. 9. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before Your Honours. No condition of filing of return of income to claim the exemption

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)

22 | P a g e section 10(38) is only a part of the source of capital gain on shares and only a limited portion of source is treated as exempt and not the entire capital gain (on sale of shares). If an equity share is sold within the period of twelve months then it is chargeable

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

22. Section 17 (2) outlines various perquisites, such as: 1) Value of rent-free or concessional rent accommodation provided by the employer. 2) Value of any benefit/amenity granted free or at concessional rate to specified employees, etc. Specified employees are company directors, employees with substantial interest in the company and any other employee whose salary income exclusive of non-monetary

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

22. Section 17 (2) outlines various perquisites, such as: 1) Value of rent-free or concessional rent accommodation provided by the employer. 2) Value of any benefit/amenity granted free or at concessional rate to specified employees, etc. Specified employees are company directors, employees with substantial interest in the company and any other employee whose salary income exclusive of non-monetary

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

22. Section 17 (2) outlines various perquisites, such as: 1) Value of rent-free or concessional rent accommodation provided by the employer. 2) Value of any benefit/amenity granted free or at concessional rate to specified employees, etc. Specified employees are company directors, employees with substantial interest in the company and any other employee whose salary income exclusive of non-monetary

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)

22 of 59 o) The aforesaid amendment made to section 201(1) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2012 has been held to have retrospective effect in the following decisions: p) Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal principles laid down by various Courts (supra), including in relation to construction of the first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) itself

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

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

section 194C. The assessee claimed TDS of only Rs. 8,826 on this amount, whereas Rs. 22,000+ should have been deducted (assuming 10% contractor rate + surcharge). The proportionate 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

section 194C. The assessee claimed TDS of only Rs. 8,826 on this amount, whereas Rs. 22,000+ should have been deducted (assuming 10% contractor rate + surcharge). The proportionate 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

section 194C. The assessee claimed TDS of only Rs. 8,826 on this amount, whereas Rs. 22,000+ should have been deducted (assuming 10% contractor rate + surcharge). The proportionate disallowance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of that gentleman who was the key person of the appellant-company has been deleted. Therefore, the learned AR submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). The learned AR also placed reliance on Circular No. 19 dated 12th June, 2017 stating

M/S. SINDHU REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 2(22)(e) and moreover, the lender company is a NBFC which is also excluded from the said deeming provision, therefore, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal and we uphold the ld. CIT (A)’s order and dismiss this ground. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 10

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINDHU REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 2(22)(e) and moreover, the lender company is a NBFC which is also excluded from the said deeming provision, therefore, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal and we uphold the ld. CIT (A)’s order and dismiss this ground. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 10

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

section 2(22)(e) of the Act since the payment (i.e. advances) were not given in the ordinary course of business? 10. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 101,49,17,767/- on account of disallowance

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

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)

22'10-2005). 3. After deducting the expenditure of Rs.4,75,70,229/- from the turnover of Rs.8,24,85,165/-, the Operating Profit comes to Rs.3,49,14,936/-. in percentage terms, this Operating Profit is 73.496 over the Operating Cost. 4. The Operating Profit ratio is prima-facie at a very high level. This becomes a matter