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)

31 7320 720. The assessee claimed deduction under section 10 A of the income tax act in the return of income With respect to 9 different units of the assessee aggregating to INR 13 28 795 619/–. The claim of the assessee was examined by the assessing officer, wherein, he held that the disallowance

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

31-3-1972, Section 40(a) (v) was in force and from 1-4- 1972, 40-A (5) came into force in its place. Both provisions were substantially similar. Section 40(a)(v) was preceded by Section 40(c) (iii) which was applicable only to companies. That (Section 40(c)(iii)) was introduced by Finance Act, 1973 with effect from

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

31-3-1972, Section 40(a) (v) was in force and from 1-4- 1972, 40-A (5) came into force in its place. Both provisions were substantially similar. Section 40(a)(v) was preceded by Section 40(c) (iii) which was applicable only to companies. That (Section 40(c)(iii)) was introduced by Finance Act, 1973 with effect from

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

31-3-1972, Section 40(a) (v) was in force and from 1-4- 1972, 40-A (5) came into force in its place. Both provisions were substantially similar. Section 40(a)(v) was preceded by Section 40(c) (iii) which was applicable only to companies. That (Section 40(c)(iii)) was introduced by Finance Act, 1973 with effect from

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)

31. The object of introducing section 40(a)(ia), as explained in the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 5, dated July 15, 2005—See [2005] 276 ITR (St.) 151), is to augment compliance with the TDS provisions in the case of residents and curb bogus payments. Moreover, though section 194J was inserted with effect from July

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 10(38), would thus not go to form part of the total income. Both conditions as stated by the apex court in CIT (Central) v. Harprasad and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC) fail. The observations made by the hon'ble high court qua capital gains while distinguishing the said decision by the apex court

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)

31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same 3 | P a g e taxable income. Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system [CASS] and notice u/s 143 (2) was issued on 8/8/2013 by the Asst Commissioner, circle – 2, Noida

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)

31 profits‟ to be substituted for the declared profits as per sub-section (10) of section 80IA. 10. The ld. AR has commended to us the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 254 CTR (Bom.) 504 in which it has been held that merely because an assessee makes extra ordinary

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)

31 profits‟ to be substituted for the declared profits as per sub-section (10) of section 80IA. 10. The ld. AR has commended to us the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 254 CTR (Bom.) 504 in which it has been held that merely because an assessee makes extra ordinary

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, from INR 4,69,59,072/-. 5. Aggrieved against this, both the assessee and the Revenue have assailed the finding of Ld.CIT(A) in appeal and cross-objection respectively before this Tribunal. 6. Ground No.1 & 9 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature, need no separate adjudication. 7. Ground No.2

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

10(34)/l 0(35)/l 0(15)(iv)(h) of the Act. [Details of exempt income is at pages 289-290 of Paperbook (merits)]. In view of the provisions of section 14A of the Act, the assessee suo moto disallowed Rs. 67.04 lacs in the return of income, being salary of two employees of the company who were involved

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Disallowance w.r.t. deduction claimed under Section 6,38,13,601 80G of the Act on account of donations given 14. Aggrieved by the adjustments made to the returned income, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 15. As regards impugned adjustments to the deductions eligible under s.80IC & s.80IE of Act in terms of section 80IA(10) r.w.s 92CA

M/S R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2011-12]

31. Similarly the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com. 90/241 Taxman 401 again held that interest earned on Surplus Business Funds deposited with Banks for short periods will be part of profits of business for the purposes of Section 10-B of the Act. The relevant portion

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., 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

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, 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

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORAITON vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

disallowed. 6. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the order of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi questioning the reopening of the assessment. It also contested the treatment of the activity of CFS/ICD as a distinct line of business and denial of exemption u/s 10 (29) of the Act. The appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer