DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMAXE BUILDHOME (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing deduction U/S 80IB (10) is the non fulfilment of condition (c) of Section 801B (l0) which is basically that each residential unit should have built area of less than 1000 sq. ft. in the housing project as the project is within 25 Kms from Delhi. The appellant has developed housing project 'Omaxe Green wood' in Sec 93B consisting of33

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)

disallowance of Rs.866,59,50,444 made under section 40(a) of the Act is legally unsustainable and calls for being deleted in toto. 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

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

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

29,988/-, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted as under :- “Statutory Framework & Issue: The AO, based on the tax audit report, noted two categories of payments without TDS or with short TDS: (a) Rs. 1,58,365 to Vibzap Soft Solutions with no TDS deducted, and (b) Rs. 11,71,623 (proportionate disallowance on Rs. 62,04,815 to Vibzap

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

29,988/-, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted as under :- “Statutory Framework & Issue: The AO, based on the tax audit report, noted two categories of payments without TDS or with short TDS: (a) Rs. 1,58,365 to Vibzap Soft Solutions with no TDS deducted, and (b) Rs. 11,71,623 (proportionate disallowance on Rs. 62,04,815 to Vibzap

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

29,988/-, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted as under :- “Statutory Framework & Issue: The AO, based on the tax audit report, noted two categories of payments without TDS or with short TDS: (a) Rs. 1,58,365 to Vibzap Soft Solutions with no TDS deducted, and (b) Rs. 11,71,623 (proportionate disallowance on Rs. 62,04,815 to Vibzap

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

29. Assessee has relied upon the plethora of the judicial precedents and mainly on the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Raptakose Brett & Co. Ltd (supra) Dated June 10, 2015 wherein the identical issue was decided and it was held as under:— "8. From the conjoint reading and plain understanding of all these sections it can be seen

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)

29 November 2016 dismissing appeal of the assessee against the order passed by The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Noida (The Learned AO) u/s 143 (3) of The Income Tax Act (The Act) passed on 31st of March 2014. 02. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal ―1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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

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

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(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)

10) of the Act. 2.4. Based on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the various judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant in this regard. 2.5. Without prejudice to Grounds 2.1 to 2.4 above, based on the facts and circumstances of the case

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 the Act. 2.4. Based on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the various judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant in this regard. 2.5. Without prejudice to Grounds 2.1 to 2.4 above, based on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

10,80,927 by invoking section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules). CIT(A) The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A of the Act on the ground that no expenditure has been pointed by the AO for earning the exempt income. Accordingly, since