NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act made while calculating Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act by ignoring the fact that clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act, introduced by Finance Act 2006 is applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration ? 5. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act made while calculating Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act by ignoring the fact that clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act, introduced by Finance Act 2006 is applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration ? 5. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act made while calculating Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act by ignoring the fact that clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act, introduced by Finance Act 2006 is applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration ? 5. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act made while calculating Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act by ignoring the fact that clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act, introduced by Finance Act 2006 is applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration ? 5. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

2,76,94,778/- (i.e. Rs. 3,11,06,565 – Rs. 34,11,787). He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition after applying his mind to all the details and documents which were already on records. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submission of the parties, thoroughly went through the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

2,76,94,778/- (i.e. Rs. 3,11,06,565 – Rs. 34,11,787). He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition after applying his mind to all the details and documents which were already on records. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submission of the parties, thoroughly went through the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

disallowed under section 40a(ia) to the tune of Rs 2,66,21,033/- (Rs.7,26,890/- + Rs. 2,58,94,143/-) and the addition of Rs. 3,15,46,346/- has been made. 9.1 That the DRP has in view of the facts and circumstances of the case has erred in law and on facts in holding that identical

RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal, Impugning The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereafter ‘Ao’) Making The Transfer Pricing Adjustments (Hereafter ‘Tp Adjustments’) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Hereafter ‘Ay’) 2008-09 As Finalised By The Transfer Pricing Officer 2015:Dhc:6421-Db

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 8. The Assessee appealed against the final assessment order dated 9th October, 2012, inter alia, on the ground that eClerx and Vishal could not be considered as comparable entities for the purpose of calculating the benchmark operating profit margin. The Assessee claimed that the said companies were engaged in the business of Knowledge

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

disallowance of AMP expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act. Both the Sections 37(1) and 92 operated in different domains. (vii) Section 92 was of a much wider amplitude than Section 40A(2) of the Act. While Section 40A (2) restricted the deduction to the extent it is reasonable, Section 92 requires benchmarking of all the international transactions

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

disallowance of AMP expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act. Both the Sections 37(1) and 92 operated in different domains. (vii) Section 92 was of a much wider amplitude than Section 40A(2) of the Act. While Section 40A (2) restricted the deduction to the extent it is reasonable, Section 92 requires benchmarking of all the international transactions

NOIDA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

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

2):\nProvided that no interest expenditure shall be carried forward under this sub-section\nfor more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for\nwhich the excess interest expenditure was first computed (Emphasis supplied)\nTherefore, any interest disallowed under section 94B can be carried forward for up to\n8 subsequent assessment years (AYs) and deducted, subject

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I

The appeal is dismissed

disallowed, but the same had been deleted by the Disputes Resolution Panel. The Tribunal, therefore, observed that it had been correctly contended on behalf of the assessee that no addition on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening the completed assessment survived. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this observation of the Tribunal is erroneous inasmuch

ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in Appellant's case, before disregarding the arm's length price determined by the Appellant. The AO/ DRP have further erred in upholding the action of the TPO. 3.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred in not appreciating

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

disallowances of INR 1.52\ncrores under section 14A of the Act and accordingly, the total\nincome of the assessee is computed at INR 1,26,72,68,289/-\nand\nbook profit under section 115JB for MAT purposes was computed\nat INR 2,31,11,56,502/-.\n\n6. Against that order, the assessee preferred appeal before

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU vs. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD

2,033,224,615 under Section 92CA of the Act. 15. On the basis of the above orders, the AO passed the final order on 23rd November 2012 under Section 143 read with Section 144C of the Act, making the above TP adjustment to the AMP under Section 92CA of the Act. Impugned order of the ITAT 16. Aggrieved

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU vs. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD

2,033,224,615 under Section 92CA of the Act. 15. On the basis of the above orders, the AO passed the final order on 23rd November 2012 under Section 143 read with Section 144C of the Act, making the above TP adjustment to the AMP under Section 92CA of the Act. Impugned order of the ITAT 16. Aggrieved

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

disallowances of INR 1.52\ncrores under section 14A of the Act and accordingly, the total\nincome of the assessee is computed at INR 1,26,72,68,289/- and\nbook profit under section 115JB for MAT purposes was computed\nat INR 2,31,11,56,502/-.\n\n6. Against that order, the assessee preferred appeal before

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowing the claim of the appellant for Rs. 9,492,188, being the amount of depreciation on the acquired business database under section 32 of the Act. 5.2 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in confirming and accordingly, the learned AO has erred in following the assessment orders passed