HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

House ltd.: ITA No. 4135/Del/2013 (Del.) DCIT v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd.: 155 ITD 701 Coil Company (P.) Ltd v ACIT: 65 SOT 27 (Delhi - Trib.) DCIT v Mentor Graphics, (Noida) (P.) Ltd: IT Appeal No. 2634 (DELHI) OF 2011 (Delhi Trib) ITO v Cryobanks International (I) (P.) Ltd.: 151 ITD 552 (Delhi - Trib.) Casio India Co. (P.) Ltd v DCIT

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

House ltd.: ITA No. 4135/Del/2013 (Del.) DCIT v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd.: 155 ITD 701 Coil Company (P.) Ltd v ACIT: 65 SOT 27 (Delhi - Trib.) DCIT v Mentor Graphics, (Noida) (P.) Ltd: IT Appeal No. 2634 (DELHI) OF 2011 (Delhi Trib) ITO v Cryobanks International (I) (P.) Ltd.: 151 ITD 552 (Delhi - Trib.) Casio India Co. (P.) Ltd v DCIT

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

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

Section 10A of the IT Act are clearly attracted. Further vide its letter dated 21.2.2004, the assessee company have filed a copy of the opinion of M/s Price Water House on its eligibility to claim deduction u/s 10A of the I.T. Act which is placed on record, wherein inter alia other things it has been mentioned that – “ Considering the fact

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

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

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

Section 10A of the IT Act are clearly attracted. Further vide its letter dated 21.2.2004, the assessee company have filed a copy of the opinion of M/s Price Water House on its eligibility to claim deduction u/s 10A of the I.T. Act which is placed on record, wherein inter alia other things it has been mentioned that – “ Considering the fact

PHONIX LAMPS LTD vs. ADDL CIT RANGE,

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S Pheonix Lamps Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 59A, Nsez, Phase-Ii, Range Noida. Noida. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :S/Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Sharat Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2017 O R D E R

section 10A. The form further prescribes the steps involved in the computation of total income. This shows that after aggregating the income from salary, house property

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

houses the section like 80-HHC 80-IA.etc. The Parliament was aware of the various restriction and limiting provisions like section 8OA and section 80AB which Was in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter-III. The fact that even after its recast the relief has be-en retained in Chapter 11/ indicates that the intention of Parliament

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

houses the section like 80-HHC 80-IA.etc. The Parliament was aware of the various restriction and limiting provisions like section 8OA and section 80AB which Was in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter-III. The fact that even after its recast the relief has be-en retained in Chapter 11/ indicates that the intention of Parliament

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

houses the section like 80-HHC 80-IA.etc. The Parliament was aware of the various restriction and limiting provisions like section 8OA and section 80AB which Was in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter-III. The fact that even after its recast the relief has be-en retained in Chapter 11/ indicates that the intention of Parliament

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

houses the section like 80-HHC 80-IA.etc. The Parliament was aware of the various restriction and limiting provisions like section 8OA and section 80AB which Was in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter-III. The fact that even after its recast the relief has be-en retained in Chapter 11/ indicates that the intention of Parliament

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Housing Organization Vs. Sumangal Sevices (P) Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619. (xii)Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs. Tullow India Operation Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 789. (xiii)Surya Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 1606. (xiv)Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 2 – UNION OF INDIA

NEC HCL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result we confirm the finding the of the CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance u/s 40a (i) of The Income tax Act of Rs

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property • Profits and gains of business and profession • Capital gains • Income from other sources 5.2 The income computed under various heads of income in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the IT Act shall be aggregated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the IT Act, 1961. This means that first the income/loss from various

ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 10A 4.1. The DRP and AO failed to appreciate the nature of business of the appellant and erred in presuming that the appellant is engaged in providing the technical services and thereby erred in reducing expenses in foreign exchange from export turnover. 5. Exclusion of Total Turnover 5.1. Without prejudice to ground 3 and 4 above

ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 10A 4.1. The DRP and AO failed to appreciate the nature of business of the appellant and erred in presuming that the appellant is engaged in providing the technical services and thereby erred in reducing expenses in foreign exchange from export turnover. 5. Exclusion of Total Turnover 5.1. Without prejudice to ground 3 and 4 above

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CETRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

house property' and hire charges and maintenance as 'Income from other sources', on the ground that the assessee was not notified as an Industrial Park/SEZ by the CBDT.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the nature of income from letting out of properties and maintenance of properties is in the nature of business income. The Tribunal emphasized that the deciding factor

BHAGWAN SWROOP PATHAK,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1(3), HARYANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishibhagwan Swroop Pathak Vs Ito H. No. 651, 1St Floor, Section 10A, Ward-1(3) Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon , Haryana Pan: Aappp6478A Pin: 122006 (Appellant) (Respondent)

10A, Ward-1(3) Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon , Haryana PAN: AAPPP6478A PIN: 122006 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. M. R. Sahu, CA Respondent by Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 05 .03.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 23/01/2019 passed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

10A, clause (b) of item (i) of Explanation 2 of section 10B and\nclause (b) of Explanation to section 80HHE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43\nof 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby specifies the following\ninformation technology enabled products or services, as the case may be, for\nthe purpose of said clauses, namely:\n(1) Back

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

10A, clause (b) of item (i) of Explanation 2 of section 10B and\nclause (b) of Explanation to section 80HHE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43\nof 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby specifies the following\ninformation technology enabled products or services, as the case may be, for\nthe purpose of said clauses, namely:\n(1) Back

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

house property because a mere 10% of the total space was seen to be utilized for its own use by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the investments should have been linked directly to eligible business activities for the purposes of Section 80IC of the Act and not for earning revenues otherwise. The ld. CIT(A) held that