HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2(iv) to section 10A of the Act are liable to be excluded from total turnover also for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act and that the Revenue is not to press the said issue henceforth. This Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 (ITA No.5623/Del/2010) also, following

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2(iv) to section 10A of the Act are liable to be excluded from total turnover also for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act and that the Revenue is not to press the said issue henceforth. This Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 (ITA No.5623/Del/2010) also, following

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. B2B MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Vs. M/S. B2B Management, Ward-271(1),Civic Centre, 5/47, Shyam Singh Street, Minto Road, New Delhi Gopi Nath, New Delhi Pan :Aajfb0165A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri C.P. Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Harsh Kumar, Ca

section 10A(2) of the Act. In view of the observations made, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed of Rs.1

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 10A of the Act could not be applied. 2. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in the confirming disallowance

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 10A of the Act could not be applied. 2. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in the confirming disallowance

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

2) suggests that the original source of the product has to be found. Thus, as a matter of plain English, when it is said that one word is derived from another, often in another language, what is meant is that the source of that word is another word, often in another language. As an illustration, the word "democracy" is derived

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

2) suggests that the original source of the product has to be found. Thus, as a matter of plain English, when it is said that one word is derived from another, often in another language, what is meant is that the source of that word is another word, often in another language. As an illustration, the word "democracy" is derived

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

2) suggests that the original source of the product has to be found. Thus, as a matter of plain English, when it is said that one word is derived from another, often in another language, what is meant is that the source of that word is another word, often in another language. As an illustration, the word "democracy" is derived

M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- II

2) suggests that the original source of the product has to be found. Thus, as a matter of plain English, when it is said that one word is derived from another, often in another language, what is meant is that the source of that word is another word, often in another language. As an illustration, the word "democracy" is derived

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

2) suggests that the original source of the product has to be found. Thus, as a matter of plain English, when it is said that one word is derived from another, often in another language, what is meant is that the source of that word is another word, often in another language. As an illustration, the word "democracy" is derived

M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II

2) suggests that the original source of the product has to be found. Thus, as a matter of plain English, when it is said that one word is derived from another, often in another language, what is meant is that the source of that word is another word, often in another language. As an illustration, the word "democracy" is derived

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to disallowance of deduction under 10B of the Act by the Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee claimed deduction under section 10B of the Act in respect of profit derived from its 100% export-oriented

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to disallowance of deduction under 10B of the Act by the Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee claimed deduction under section 10B of the Act in respect of profit derived from its 100% export-oriented

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to disallowance of deduction under 10B of the Act by the Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee claimed deduction under section 10B of the Act in respect of profit derived from its 100% export-oriented

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to disallowance of deduction under 10B of the Act by the Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee claimed deduction under section 10B of the Act in respect of profit derived from its 100% export-oriented

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

10A which are analogous provisions of section 1DB, it is held that the deduction u/s 1DB is allowable at the source itself and not after computation of Gross Total Income as per the provisions of the Act. The second substantive issue is, therefore, also decided in favour of the appellant and the Assessing Officer is hereby .directed to recompute

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

2 to section 10A of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Notification No. SO 890(E) dated 26 September 2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Considering the business module of the appellant. It is seen that appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the IT Act. It is also seen that the claim of deduction

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

2 to section 10A of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Notification No. SO 890(E) dated 26 September 2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Considering the business module of the appellant. It is seen that appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the IT Act. It is also seen that the claim of deduction