DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

sections": [ "80IB", "139(1)", "139(5)", "115JB", "143(1)", "143(1)(a)", "36(1)(va)", "43B", "80IB(11A)", "80IB(7)", "44AB", "80A(5)", "80AC", "147", "148", "10B", "32(1)(ii-a)" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance

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

10B of the I.T. Act and confirmed the disallowance without noticing these sub-sections do not mandate that the return of income should be filed within the specified due date u/s 139(1

PICRIC LTD vs. ITO WARD 14 (4),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with directions contained in para 22 above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

1,11,57,590/- including therein, inter alia, disallowance of Rs. 19,24,528/- being interest income, disallowance of subsidy receipt of Rs. 81,000/- and disallowance of insurance claims of Rs. 19,50,000/- in computing deduction under section 10B

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

disallowance of the technical support fees, provision for write back and donation. After making the add back, the gross total income was computed at `1,23,04,727/- against which the loss for the assessment year 2001-2002 were brought ITA Nos.347/2011 & 2067/2010 Page 3 of 32 forward and adjusted in terms of Section 72. Thus the total income

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

disallowance of the technical support fees, provision for write back and donation. After making the add back, the gross total income was computed at `1,23,04,727/- against which the loss for the assessment year 2001-2002 were brought ITA Nos.347/2011 & 2067/2010 Page 3 of 32 forward and adjusted in terms of Section 72. Thus the total income

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

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

disallowed the deductions claimed by the taxpayer u/s 10AA on account of interest income of Rs. 7,57,24,178/- and miscellaneous income of Rs. 2, 90,63,825/-. On the ground that the said income cannot be set to have any direct nexus with the assessee business because the assessee is not into the business of finance and investment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -II vs. KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

disallowed, as the income of this unit was exempt from tax. In response, the Assessee furnished its detailed submissions, which, however, were rejected by the AO who was of the opinion that as Section 10B was in Chapter-III of the Act, under the heading ―incomes which do not form part of total income‖, legislative intent was clear that such

UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/ DRP has erred in disallowing deduction under section 10A/10AA of the Act on interest income of INR 72,12,856 earned on Fixed Deposits placed with banks for temporary period (including interest income of INR 5,58,388 pertaining to fixed deposits with banks

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/ DRP has erred in disallowing deduction under section 10A/10AA of the Act on interest income of INR 72,12,856 earned on Fixed Deposits placed with banks for temporary period (including interest income of INR 5,58,388 pertaining to fixed deposits with banks

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINEET SOOD & SONS (HUF), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita No. 6205/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Acit Vs. Vineet Sood & Sons (Huf), Circle 28(1), G-53, Sarita Vihar, New New Delhi Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaahv3031Q)

section 10B of the Income Tax Act exempts profits of the undertaking “from export” and not “entire profits”. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. The brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RIVIERA HOME FURNISHING (P) LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Vs. Acit, Range-15, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Dcit, Circle-15(1), Room No. Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, 412, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Department By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2016 Order

disallowance under Section 14A can be called for because exemption under Section 10B was allowed after excluding the expenses related to such income. The said exemption was quantified, in accordance with section 10B of the Act. Therefore, applying the provisions of section 14A, resulting in duplicating the exercise, is not called for. We, therefore, incline to uphold the order

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

1 to 1.5 and 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

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

1 to 1.5 and 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

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

1 to 1.5 and 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