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

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

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

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

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

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

disallow be expenditure u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act.” 18. In ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd vs ACIT reported in 140 ITD 41 (Mum) it is held as under: „„48. All the above three grounds are on the issue whether exemption under Sec 10 can be allowed when incomes are computed under Sec.44 of the IT Act. In arriving

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

30,00,000 appears to be dubious and unjustifiable since no direct revenue was generated to the assessee against such expenditure. Re Reimbursement of expenses :Assessing Officer disallowed the reimbursement of Rs. 49,32,507alleging the below: - MOU does not appear to be fair and in larger interest of SIEMCL, - under the Act, there is no section under which such

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

30,00,000 appears to be dubious and unjustifiable since no direct revenue was generated to the assessee against such expenditure. Re Reimbursement of expenses :Assessing Officer disallowed the reimbursement of Rs. 49,32,507alleging the below: - MOU does not appear to be fair and in larger interest of SIEMCL, - under the Act, there is no section under which such

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

30,00,000 appears to be dubious and unjustifiable since no direct revenue was generated to the assessee against such expenditure. Re Reimbursement of expenses :Assessing Officer disallowed the reimbursement of Rs. 49,32,507alleging the below: - MOU does not appear to be fair and in larger interest of SIEMCL, - under the Act, there is no section under which such

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

30. Whereas one of the decision of Coordinate Bench, of course while deciding the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) ( c) of the income tax act , but dealing with the controversy and also referring to the decision of the coordinate bench referred to above , in Asia Pacific Performance SICAV (supra) held as under :— We shall first discuss the assessee

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,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

Disallowance under section 14A, as per Rule 8D. Facts: During the relevant previous year, the assessee company earned dividend/interest income of Rs. 15,11,45,290 from investments in shares, 30 bonds, and mutual funds, which was exempt under section 10

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

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

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

Disallowance of exemption of LTCG claimed u/s 10(38) as discussed above in para 12 above. 247,52,73,951 Total Assessed Income 221,68,29,998 Rounded Off 221,68,30,000 14. In view of the above discussion, book profit of the assessee is computed u/s 115JB of the Act: Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Book loss as declared