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]

section 139 of the income Tax Act 1961 when the accounts are approved by Director, Chandigarh the time of return as per 139 has been expired. Now the university has filed its return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 and claimed exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiab) of income tax Act, 1961. • University was formed with the basic

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

10 Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, in ITA No. 4236/Del/2015 since the property under consideration is used by the assessee company as its registered office and is therefore outside the scope of section 22 itself. Property under consideration is used for business and therefore outside the scope of Section 22 itself 19. At first, it is hereby submitted

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. We have carefully considered the rival contentions the assessee has submitted that payment have been made to various parties who are shipping agents. If the facts are so then according to us the provision of section 172 applies to them and tax is not required to be deducted u/s. 194C of the act. Secondly if the expenses are already

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

23. Section 17 (2) has not undergone any substantial change by the amendment of 2002. The only change is in the introduction of Section 10 (10CC) which states that tax actually paid by the employer to discharge an employee‘s obligation ―not amounting to a monetary benefit‖ would not be included as the employees‘ income. If seen from the context

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

23. Section 17 (2) has not undergone any substantial change by the amendment of 2002. The only change is in the introduction of Section 10 (10CC) which states that tax actually paid by the employer to discharge an employee‘s obligation ―not amounting to a monetary benefit‖ would not be included as the employees‘ income. If seen from the context

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

23. Section 17 (2) has not undergone any substantial change by the amendment of 2002. The only change is in the introduction of Section 10 (10CC) which states that tax actually paid by the employer to discharge an employee‘s obligation ―not amounting to a monetary benefit‖ would not be included as the employees‘ income. If seen from the context

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

MRS. RASHMI DHARIWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 11 and 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirashmi Dhariwal, Vs. Acit, Aashray Farms, Sub Po, Circle-23(1), Sawan Public School, Bhatti New Delhi Mines, Asola Village, New Delhi Pan:Aappd9702P (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of interest. 4. Ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal of the assessee are general in nature and therefore same are dismissed. 4 | P a g e Rashmi Dhariwal V ACIT ITA 2900/Del/2014 2008- 2009 5. With respect to ground No. 4 to 10 , The Ld. authorized representative with respect to the income from house property submitted that

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, 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

disallowance reflects this settled principle. Nature of the Transaction—Watch as an "Award" vs. Contractual 2. Incentive: The assessee characterized the watch as an "award" for directing a super-hit film. However, awards and prizes are generally covered under section 10(23

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

disallowance reflects this settled principle. Nature of the Transaction—Watch as an "Award" vs. Contractual 2. Incentive: The assessee characterized the watch as an "award" for directing a super-hit film. However, awards and prizes are generally covered under section 10(23

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

disallowance reflects this settled principle. Nature of the Transaction—Watch as an "Award" vs. Contractual 2. Incentive: The assessee characterized the watch as an "award" for directing a super-hit film. However, awards and prizes are generally covered under section 10(23

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)

23 | P a g e income and only the portion of Long term capital gain on sale of equity shares would be removed from the taxable income as the same is exempt u/s 10(38). This precise issue had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Royal Calcutta Turf Club's case (supra), wherein

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

23,29,329/- on account of Profit on Sale/ Redemption of Investment. 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer {hereinafter referred to as “AO”} in denying benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 {hereinafter referred to as “Act”}. 2.1 Without prejudice, on facts

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

23,29,329/- on account of Profit on Sale/ Redemption of Investment. 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer {hereinafter referred to as “AO”} in denying benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 {hereinafter referred to as “Act”}. 2.1 Without prejudice, on facts

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 as follows:- “10.0 In Ground No. 4 of the appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the AO in making a disallowance of Rs 56,59,609/- on account of Provision made for Standard Assets. In this regard, in the order of assessment, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under reference

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

disallowance of ₹2,47,52,73,951/-. However, the CIT(A) did not interfere with the AO’s decision regarding the computation of book profits for the purpose of determination of MAT under Section 115JB of the Act. 10. The Revenue appealed the decision of the CIT(A) to exclude the capital gains from the income of the Assessee