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)

section 10(38) of the Act.‖ (Emphasis supplied) Appeal filed by the department against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal before the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 09.10.2018. 1.34 In the case of Netesoft India Ltd vs. DCIT: 5359/Mum/2017, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, following the decision in the case

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

Section 10(38) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of ₹2,47,52,73,951/-. However

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 10(38) of the Act reads as under: - Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(38) “6. 1. In the computation

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 10(38) of the Act reads as under: - Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(38) “6. 1. In the computation

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

disallowance and for reasons given by us above Ground No 4 is allowed. Accordingly, the issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the assessee. IN REGARD TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE : ITA 1750/Del/2018 : GROUND NO. 1 7. Ld. DR submitted that at one end assessee is taking benefit of Section 10(38

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

disallowance and for reasons given by us above Ground No 4 is allowed. Accordingly, the issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the assessee. IN REGARD TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE : ITA 1750/Del/2018 : GROUND NO. 1 7. Ld. DR submitted that at one end assessee is taking benefit of Section 10(38

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.” 3.0 Thus, all the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 9,52,494/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.” 3.0 Thus, all the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 9,52,494/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.” 3.0 Thus, all the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 9,52,494/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.” 3.0 Thus, all the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 9,52,494/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.” 3.0 Thus, all the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 9,52,494/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38

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

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). 20. In regard to ground No. 3 and 3.1, the admitted state of affairs is that in assessee

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

disallowing long term capital gains exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Briefly the facts

ITO, WARD- 28(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHIVANI GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

disallowing long term capital gains exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Briefly the facts

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

38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”, – (a) in the case of any assessee – [(v) any tax actually paid by an employer referred to in clause (10CC) of section 10:]” Analysis and Findings 18. Till 31-3-1972, Section

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”, – (a) in the case of any assessee – [(v) any tax actually paid by an employer referred to in clause (10CC) of section 10:]” Analysis and Findings 18. Till 31-3-1972, Section