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

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-office Operations,\n(ii) Call Centers\n(iii) Content Development

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

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-office Operations,\n(ii) Call Centers\n(iii) Content Development

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

property in the goods exported is not relevant to Section 80-HHC. The section does not in terms require the exporter to be the owner of the goods. Even Section 2(18) of the Customs Act does not include the idea of ownership within the definition of the word “export”. This may be contrasted with Section

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

house. The Ld. CIT (A) is of the view that AO has not established by any material that such expenditure was for non business purposes and no disallowance can be made on presumption. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon clause 7 of the rent deed wherein it is mentioned that premises would be occupied by officers, the family members

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

house. The Ld. CIT (A) is of the view that AO has not established by any material that such expenditure was for non business purposes and no disallowance can be made on presumption. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon clause 7 of the rent deed wherein it is mentioned that premises would be occupied by officers, the family members

DCIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JINDAL SAW LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

house. The Ld. CIT (A) is of the view that AO has not established by any material that such expenditure was for non business purposes and no disallowance can be made on presumption. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon clause 7 of the rent deed wherein it is mentioned that premises would be occupied by officers, the family members

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

House, as the case may be), issues a certificate referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4A), that in respect of the amount of the export turnover specified therein, the deduction under this sub-section is to be allowed to a supporting manufacturer, then the amount of deduction in the case of the asses-see shall be reduced

CIT vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD

properties. The manufacturing process and the parameters are accordingly decided. The assessee has in-house moulds manufacturing facility. In case the in-house facility is not able to fulfill the requirements, the moulds are purchased from outside. The requirement of moulds is very high having regard to the number of components produced by the assessee. The moulds have to withstand

CIT vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD

properties. The manufacturing process and the parameters are accordingly decided. The assessee has in-house moulds manufacturing facility. In case the in-house facility is not able to fulfill the requirements, the moulds are purchased from outside. The requirement of moulds is very high having regard to the number of components produced by the assessee. The moulds have to withstand

CIT vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD

properties. The manufacturing process and the parameters are accordingly decided. The assessee has in-house moulds manufacturing facility. In case the in-house facility is not able to fulfill the requirements, the moulds are purchased from outside. The requirement of moulds is very high having regard to the number of components produced by the assessee. The moulds have to withstand

CIT vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD

properties. The manufacturing process and the parameters are accordingly decided. The assessee has in-house moulds manufacturing facility. In case the in-house facility is not able to fulfill the requirements, the moulds are purchased from outside. The requirement of moulds is very high having regard to the number of components produced by the assessee. The moulds have to withstand

CIT vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD

properties. The manufacturing process and the parameters are accordingly decided. The assessee has in-house moulds manufacturing facility. In case the in-house facility is not able to fulfill the requirements, the moulds are purchased from outside. The requirement of moulds is very high having regard to the number of components produced by the assessee. The moulds have to withstand

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

house property and disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,23,190/- claimed by the assessee in respect of leased out properties in the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 framed by him under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

Section 132(4) of the Act on 25th November, 1999, which is as under:- ―Statement of Shri Mahender Singh Aggarwal s/o Sh. Mangat Ram Aggarwal aged 54 years R/0 2/34 Roop Nagar Delhi recorded on oath during the search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 25.11.99 at 2/34 Roop Nagar, Delhi

AVICHAL KULSHRESTHA,LONDON vs. ITO WARD 35(7), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

house other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset. Property bearing flat no.Cl/0801, the Heartsong, Sector 10B Gurgaon, Haryana, India 122001 was acquired only on 21.12.2018. To avail the benefit u/s 54F of the I. T. Act, 1961, the property had to acquire till

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

section 92B(2) i.e., there exists a prior agreement 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 11 of 17 in relation to such transaction between Citigroup Inc. (third person) and Wipro Ltd. (associated enterprise). In the light of this structure of transaction, it ceases to be uncontrolled transaction and, hence, Wipro Technology Services Ltd., disqualifies to become

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

section 92B(2) i.e., there exists a prior agreement 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 11 of 17 in relation to such transaction between Citigroup Inc. (third person) and Wipro Ltd. (associated enterprise). In the light of this structure of transaction, it ceases to be uncontrolled transaction and, hence, Wipro Technology Services Ltd., disqualifies to become

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

section 92B(2) i.e., there exists a prior agreement 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 11 of 17 in relation to such transaction between Citigroup Inc. (third person) and Wipro Ltd. (associated enterprise). In the light of this structure of transaction, it ceases to be uncontrolled transaction and, hence, Wipro Technology Services Ltd., disqualifies to become