MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 10B, reliance placed by the Ld. AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 and CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 to the facts of the assessee’s case and his findings on interpretation of the term “derived

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

801A(4) of the Act. As per provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act, the assessee should be in the business of either 'developing' or ‘operate and maintain' of 'infrastructure facility'. Careful 3 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. reading of section 80IA(4) of the Act shows that word 'Developing' includes huge investment such as creating of infrastructure, roads

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

section 80IA(7) of the Act. The AO disallowed assessee's claim of deduction on the ground that the assessee has neither maintained books of account nor has complied with the requirement of audit prescribed u/s.80IA(7) of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA 4 ITA Nos.1819, 1966 & 1967/DEL/2018 (A.Y.2013-14

ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

section 80IA(7) of the Act. The AO disallowed assessee's claim of deduction on the ground that the assessee has neither maintained books of account nor has complied with the requirement of audit prescribed u/s.80IA(7) of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA 4 ITA Nos.1819, 1966 & 1967/DEL/2018 (A.Y.2013-14

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

section 80IA(7) of the Act. The AO disallowed assessee's claim of deduction on the ground that the assessee has neither maintained books of account nor has complied with the requirement of audit prescribed u/s.80IA(7) of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA 4 ITA Nos.1819, 1966 & 1967/DEL/2018 (A.Y.2013-14

MOHAN KUMAR SHARMA,UTTAR PRADESH vs. WARD 5 (1) (5), NOIDA, JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

section 80IA(7) of the Act. The AO disallowed assessee's claim of deduction on the ground that the assessee has neither maintained books of account nor has complied with the requirement of audit prescribed u/s.80IA(7) of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA 4 ITA Nos.1819, 1966 & 1967/DEL/2018 (A.Y.2013-14

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

801A since AY 2009-10 and has been filing its ITR(s) well on time to claim the same. However, in the present appeal the assessee company filed its ITR for AY 2012-13 on 28.09.2012 through a tax practitioner but due to some technical error the acknowledgment of the return could not be generated. As a result the return

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

801A since AY 2009-10 and has been filing its ITR(s) well on time to claim the same. However, in the present appeal the assessee company filed its ITR for AY 2012-13 on 28.09.2012 through a tax practitioner but due to some technical error the acknowledgment of the return could not be generated. As a result the return

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

801A since AY 2009-10 and has been filing its ITR(s) well on time to claim the same. However, in the present appeal the assessee company filed its ITR for AY 2012-13 on 28.09.2012 through a tax practitioner but due to some technical error the acknowledgment of the return could not be generated. As a result the return

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

801A since AY 2009-10 and has been filing its ITR(s) well on time to claim the same. However, in the present appeal the assessee company filed its ITR for AY 2012-13 on 28.09.2012 through a tax practitioner but due to some technical error the acknowledgment of the return could not be generated. As a result the return

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance of licence fee could not have been made. Re: Section 35ABB of the Act per se not applicable to the present case 16. The provision of section 35ABB of the Act reads as follows: "Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. 35ABB. (1) In respect of any expenditure, being in the nature of capital expenditure, incurred for acquiring

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance of licence fee could not have been made. Re: Section 35ABB of the Act per se not applicable to the present case 16. The provision of section 35ABB of the Act reads as follows: "Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. 35ABB. (1) In respect of any expenditure, being in the nature of capital expenditure, incurred for acquiring

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance of licence fee could not have been made. Re: Section 35ABB of the Act per se not applicable to the present case 16. The provision of section 35ABB of the Act reads as follows: "Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. 35ABB. (1) In respect of any expenditure, being in the nature of capital expenditure, incurred for acquiring

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance of licence fee could not have been made. Re: Section 35ABB of the Act per se not applicable to the present case 16. The provision of section 35ABB of the Act reads as follows: "Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. 35ABB. (1) In respect of any expenditure, being in the nature of capital expenditure, incurred for acquiring

ERADICATUS INFECTUS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

4 d) It was submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessee has duly claimed the deduction u/s 801AC in the ITR, the accounts are duly audited under section 44AB by the Tax Auditor, the Tax Auditor has duly certified the deduction in Clause No. 33 of the Tax Audit Report and thus, the Assessee is eligible for claiming

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

801A claimed\nby the appellant as indicated in the preceding discussion.\n\n16. The Tribunal, concurred with the aforesaid findings recorded\nby the CIT (A), by taking support of the decision of a Co-ordinate\nBench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd. v. CIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 268. As regards section 80IA

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

801A\nelectronically. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the assessee failed to point out this\ndiscrepancy and thus there is non- disclosure of true and\ncomplete particulars.\n\nii) As regards the third proviso to section 147, it is\nstated that the same is with respect to the relevant\n assessment year for which the matter is subjected to\nappeal

NHPC LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-II, , FARIDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

4 ITA Nos.5299 & 4915/Del./2019 (iv) AY 2011-12 bearing ITA No. 466 & 297/De1/2016, order dated 26.07.2019 (v) AY 2012-13 bearing ITA No.2786 & 3121/Del/2016, order 20.03.2020 (vi) AY 2013-14 bearing ITA No.5211 & 5106/Del/2016, order dated 17.02.2021 He prayed that in view of the above mentioned judgments in assessee’s own case, CIT (A) has rightly deleted the disallowance