ARVIND KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-18(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or subsection (1) or sub-section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REGENCY CREATIONS LTD

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 10B. The Appellate 2012:DHC:5783-DB ITAs 69/08, 783/09, 1239/11, 2002/10, 438,439,440,441/12 Page 5 Commissioner accepted the assessees’ argument following his previous order for the assessment year 2003-04 and also after observing that the appellant had exported computer software through proper banking channels and after duly complying with

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GENPACT INDIA NOW MERGED WITH GENPACT INDIA PVT. LTD.), HARYANA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

2 | P a g e ITA No.6773/Del/2019 & 6582/Del/2019 eligible for deduction under section 10A, the Assessing Officer excluded them from the purview of profits and gains of business and profession while computing deduction under section 10A. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowances before learned first appellate authority. Relying upon the decision taken in assessee’s own case, the first appellate

GENPACT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

2 | P a g e ITA No.6773/Del/2019 & 6582/Del/2019 eligible for deduction under section 10A, the Assessing Officer excluded them from the purview of profits and gains of business and profession while computing deduction under section 10A. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowances before learned first appellate authority. Relying upon the decision taken in assessee’s own case, the first appellate

APTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in respect of ground no

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2005-06] M/S Aptiv Components India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, (Formerly Known As M/S Delphi Vs Circle-3(1), Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Room No.-380B, C.R. Building P-24, Green Part Extn., Delhi- I.P. Estate, 110016. Delhi-110002. Pan- Aaacd0226E Assessee Revenue

2. The Revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10A on enhanced profit due to statutory disallowance u/s. 40 (a)(ia)?" 3. We find that the impugned order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

disallowance made on account of the provision of section 40(a)(ia) and 43B of the Act, were also deleted. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that re-opening of proceedings and continuation of such

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

disallowance made on account of the provision of section 40(a)(ia) and 43B of the Act, were also deleted. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that re-opening of proceedings and continuation of such

MS. GENPACT INDIA,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

2) or section 37 have been invoked in order to disallow any part of the expenditure either directly paid or reimbursed to the appellant. Meaning thereby that the amounts reimbursed to the appellant have not been found excessive or unreasonable in the context of the business needs of the I. Process Pvt Ltd. and the fair market value

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GENPACT INDIA, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

2) or section 37 have been invoked in order to disallow any part of the expenditure either directly paid or reimbursed to the appellant. Meaning thereby that the amounts reimbursed to the appellant have not been found excessive or unreasonable in the context of the business needs of the I. Process Pvt Ltd. and the fair market value

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

10A(1A) being the difference of eligible deduction Rs.78,29,37,496/-, and deduction actually claimed Rs.69,93,08,277/- by the assessee in its return of income due to a pure calculation error. d) exclusion of Rs.3,21,55,428/- received by the assessee on account of interest subsidy under Technology Up gradation Fund (TUF) its being a capital

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

10A(1A) being the difference of eligible deduction Rs.78,29,37,496/-, and deduction actually claimed Rs.69,93,08,277/- by the assessee in its return of income due to a pure calculation error. d) exclusion of Rs.3,21,55,428/- received by the assessee on account of interest subsidy under Technology Up gradation Fund (TUF) its being a capital

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

disallowance under section 40a(i) of the Act for non- deduction of TDS under section 195 of the Act. 11.1 The Assessee during the course of the argument of this appeal, with regard to selection of comparables for determination of Arm‟s Length Price, only agitated/pressed the grounds relating to inclusion of (i) TCS E-serve Ltd. (in short

ITO WARD - 23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BHAWANI POWER PROJECTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

disallowing the deduction claimed by the Assessee and making the addition, mainly relied upon the facts that the report in form No. 10CCB, which was filed on 17.04.2019 in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on dated 13.04.2019, was not in possession of the Assessee as it was neither filed earlier nor along with the return of income

ITO WARD - 23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BHAWANI POWER PROJECTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

disallowing the deduction claimed by the Assessee and making the addition, mainly relied upon the facts that the report in form No. 10CCB, which was filed on 17.04.2019 in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on dated 13.04.2019, was not in possession of the Assessee as it was neither filed earlier nor along with the return of income

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

IA of the Act that would be available to the\nassessee by considering the equivalent value of steam as\ndetermined above in ground no. 32.\"\n\n2. Further, in order to re-determine the arm's length value of steam and\nconsequently to enhance the deduction under section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

IA of the Act that would be available to the\nassessee by considering the equivalent value of steam as\ndetermined above in ground no. 32.\"\n\n2. Further, in order to re-determine the arm's length value of steam and\nconsequently to enhance the deduction under section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application

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