INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

251(2) of the Act. 1.3. That the CIT(A) erred in not quashing the assessment order dated 22.09.2022 passed without providing opportunity of personal hearing, in violation of mandatory scheme of section 144B of the Act and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Re: Disallowance

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

2. The 1 to 6 days delay in crediting employee contributions to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) accounts were caused by server errors and technical glitches. 3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming erroneous action of Id. AO of making total additions of Rs. 7,22,060/- on account of late deposit

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

2. There is no direction to As demonstrated above, during the initiate penalty course of e the assessment proceedings, proceedings in the the AO had e, satisfaction that appellant assessment order, had concealed ) some very vital therefore, provisions of transactions relating to of issue and section 271(18) would not transfer of the shares and had not come come

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

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

MCKINSEY GLOBAL CAPABILITIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (MGCS) [MGSIPL NOW MERGED WITH MGCS],HARYANA vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5314/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mckinsey Global Capabilities & Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, Services Pvt. Ltd. (Mckinsey Global Delhi Services India Pvt. Ltd.), 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Vatika Business Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-12201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccm2356G Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025–26/1077218408(1) Dated 19.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

disallowed the CSR expenditure while computing the taxable income. Since, the donee institutions are eligible institutions enjoying exemption u/s 80G of the Act, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80G of the Act which is also provided in the statute itself to the assessee. Hence, denial of deduction u/s 80G of the Act to the assessee would result in gross

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. FIS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2020-21] Dcit Vs. Fis Global Business Solutions New Delhi India Private Limited S-405, Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash, Part Ii New Delhi Pan No.Aaach2851H Appellant Respondent Co. No. 213/Del/2025 (In Ita No.5002/Del/2025) [Assessment Year: 2020-21] Fis Global Business Vs. Dcit Solutions India Private New Delhi Limited S-405, Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash, Part Ii New Delhi Pan No.Aaach2851H Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Assessee By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Advocate Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Sh. Kashish Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') were issued and served on the assessee through ITBA portal from time to time. During assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee has claimed share based compensation to employees amounting to Rs.4,89,94,158/- debited in its Profit & Loss account comprising of compensation cost

INDUS TOWERS LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petition of the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

disallowed by the appellant, alleging the same to be attributable to indirect expenses to be considered under Rule 8D(2)(1) of the Rules. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in making aforesaid enhancement without providing any opportunity to the assessee in gross violation of section 251

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallowable u/s 37(4) of the Act? (C) Whether ITAT is correct in law in taking into consideration interest on FDRs. Misc. Receipts, interest from customers on delayed payments and dividend for the purpose of Section 80-I of the Act? (D) Whether ITAT was correct in law in taking into consideration amount of interest on debentures, loans and inter

NTT COMMUNICATIONS INDIA NETWORK SERVICES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

251 of the Act.\nRE: DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,09,100/-\nGround 5: That, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe FAO/Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in disallowing a sum of\nRs. 24,00,100/- claimed as deduction from total income under Section\n80G of the Act by invoking Explanation 2

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

2)/13(3) as no undue benefits were passed on to the specified persons u/s 13(3) as alleged by the AO. In the remand proceedings, both the AO and appellant reiterated their claims. Here first question before me is that whether the assessee is allowed to raise plea /argument that its case may be examined with the provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology