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

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

26 clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (5) which corresponds to Section 40(a)(v) it uses only one expression "perquisite " as against Section 40(a) (v) which spoke of "benefit of amenity or perquisite, but this is no real distinction because the definition of "perquisite: in Clause (b) of Expln. (2) to the sub-section takes

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

26 clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (5) which corresponds to Section 40(a)(v) it uses only one expression "perquisite " as against Section 40(a) (v) which spoke of "benefit of amenity or perquisite, but this is no real distinction because the definition of "perquisite: in Clause (b) of Expln. (2) to the sub-section takes

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

26 clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (5) which corresponds to Section 40(a)(v) it uses only one expression "perquisite " as against Section 40(a) (v) which spoke of "benefit of amenity or perquisite, but this is no real distinction because the definition of "perquisite: in Clause (b) of Expln. (2) to the sub-section takes

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)

26 of 59 aforesaid decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ansal Land (supra), held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and thus has retrospective effect from 01.04.2015, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance

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

26 (LXXVI-3) [F No. 4(53)-IT/54] dated July 7, 1955 recognised the assessee's right in choosing the method for setting off which is more beneficial to the assessee; (c) the exemption under section 10(38) relates to a class of transactions, and not the source or the head of income itself. A distinction is to be made

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)

disallowed. 1.36 To this effect are the following cases:  Nomura India Investment Fund Mother Fund vs. Addl. DIT: 203 TTJ 660 (Mum Trib.)  Rare Investment vs. CIT: ITA No. 3409/Mum/2018 (Mum Trib.)  Shri Somnath Vaijanath Sakre vs. ACIT: ITA 2605/Pun/2016 (Pune Trib.) 1.37 In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully reiterated that since source of income

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 14A's retrospective applicability, the disallowance is justified on principle. Proposition A: Section 14A(1) Still Applied; CIT(A) Overcorrected

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 14A's retrospective applicability, the disallowance is justified on principle. Proposition A: Section 14A(1) Still Applied; CIT(A) Overcorrected

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 14A's retrospective applicability, the disallowance is justified on principle. Proposition A: Section 14A(1) Still Applied; CIT(A) Overcorrected

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

26. Section 27B(16)(b) of the IA clarifies that "assets" means all assets required to be shown in the balance-sheet as per Form A, in Part II of the First Schedule but excludes any items against the head "Other Accounts (to be specified)". Section 27D of the IA also specifies the manner and conditions of investment. Section

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

26. Section 27B(16)(b) of the IA clarifies that "assets" means all assets required to be shown in the balance-sheet as per Form A, in Part II of the First Schedule but excludes any items against the head "Other Accounts (to be specified)". Section 27D of the IA also specifies the manner and conditions of investment. Section

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

26. Section 27B(16)(b) of the IA clarifies that "assets" means all assets required to be shown in the balance-sheet as per Form A, in Part II of the First Schedule but excludes any items against the head "Other Accounts (to be specified)". Section 27D of the IA also specifies the manner and conditions of investment. Section

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)

10) of sec. 80IA cannot be countenanced to this extent. Ergo, it is held that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by restricting the amount of deduction u/s 10A of the Act to Rs. 2.63 crore as against Rs. 8.22 crore claimed by the assessee. The impugned order on this issue

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)

10) of sec. 80IA cannot be countenanced to this extent. Ergo, it is held that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by restricting the amount of deduction u/s 10A of the Act to Rs. 2.63 crore as against Rs. 8.22 crore claimed by the assessee. The impugned order on this issue

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,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

26,588 C. Average of total assets 9,86,947.50 D. Disallowance=A*B/C 31.84 (iii) ½% of average value of 132.94 investments [0.5%x3,32,90,205] Total disallowance 164.78 Less: Suo moto disallowance made in the return 67.03 Net disallowance made in the assessment order 97.75 The assessing officer has alternately proposed to disallow interest expenditure to the extent

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

10(34)/10(35) of the Act as under: (i) Rs.1,54,00,000/- on equity shares in M/s Karnataka bank Ltd (KBL) held as investment and (ii) Rs.1,23,17,070/- from various mutual funds. 10.2 The assessee suo-motu made disallowance of ₹49,25,241/- under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of Income