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

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

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)

disallowances based on the decision of honorable Delhi high court in case of of CIT v. Idea Cellular Page 41 of 59 Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 148/189 Taxman 118 (Delhi), . The Above decision of Honourable Delhi high court was delivered on 19/02/2010 where in the decision of coordinate bench in case of that assessee was reversed by the Hon high

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

46,489/- under section 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this issue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an enhancement of income to an extent of Rs. 274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible

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

46,489/- under section 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this issue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an enhancement of income to an extent of Rs. 274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible

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

46 taxmann.com 444/361ITR 432/[2013] 260 CTR 73/2012 SCC Online CAL12147 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The relevant para of the said judgement is reproduced herein below: "We are satisfied that the order under challenge is a just order. The reasoning appearing at paragraph 6 of the judgment and/or order under challenge reads as follows : "In the present case before

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

46 taxmann.com 444/361ITR 432/[2013] 260 CTR 73/2012 SCC Online CAL12147 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The relevant para of the said judgement is reproduced herein below: "We are satisfied that the order under challenge is a just order. The reasoning appearing at paragraph 6 of the judgment and/or order under challenge reads as follows : "In the present case before

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

46 taxmann.com 444/361ITR 432/[2013] 260 CTR 73/2012 SCC Online CAL12147 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The relevant para of the said judgement is reproduced herein below: "We are satisfied that the order under challenge is a just order. The reasoning appearing at paragraph 6 of the judgment and/or order under challenge reads as follows : "In the present case before

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

46,489/- under section 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this issue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an enhancement of income to an extent of Rs. 274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible

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)

section (10) existed at that time, nor such a proviso can be applied as we are dealing with an international transaction and not specified domestic transaction. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order upholding the invocation of sub-sec. (10) of sec. 80IA cannot be countenanced to this extent. Ergo, it is held that

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)

section (10) existed at that time, nor such a proviso can be applied as we are dealing with an international transaction and not specified domestic transaction. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order upholding the invocation of sub-sec. (10) of sec. 80IA cannot be countenanced to this extent. Ergo, it is held that

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

46,768 Project 8. Nest Housing Project 100% 225 Rs.6,386 9. Whispering Meadows-Mulund 79.88% 237 Rs.4,96,849 Housing Project Total Rs.54,17,999 On perusal of the above, it would be appreciated that all the above projects were substantially complete and already sold out, not requiring any further advertisement expenditure 10 he incurred on part

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(15)(iv)(h) Bonds IIFCL(Tax Free)-6.85% 5,55,50,685 IRFC(Tax Free)-6.70% 96,78,288 IRFC-7.18% 1.83,21,712 HUDCO-7.34% 1,83,50,000 HUDCO-8.51% 45,46,438 NHPC-8.18% 54,13,927 PFC-8.18% 98,71,812 Total 15,11,45,290 Detailed working of disallowance under section

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

10), if any while 29 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022 determining the issue. The AO may make reference to TPO for determination of ALP of the controlled transactions as per CUP method in the event the prima facie existence of ‘arrangement’ is discovered by him in the factual matrix. 43. Ground no. 3 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 44. Ground No.4 concerns