ACIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. WINDLASS STEEL CRAFT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5506/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Windlass Steel Craft, Circle-1, 11-A, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafw0958M Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

Section 10B of IT Act and such reliance is totally misplaced. 7. The order of Ld. CIT(A) in allowing claim of deduction u/s 10B to the assessee is bad in law warranted to be set aside and that of the AO be resorted. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

house fabrication in addition to inspection at the vendors factory to whom the production or manufacture had been outsourced. Once the goods were received at the Noida unit, they were examined and assembled and tested. Rust protection was undertaken. Big assemblies were disassembled and repacked. Small assemblies were packed as such. Thereupon, the goods were exported from India and erected

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

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

10B and clause (b) of Explanation to section 80HHE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby specifies the following information technology enabled products or services, as the case may be, for the purpose of said clauses, namely: (1) Back-office Operations, (ii) Call Centers (iii) Content Development or Animation (iv) Data

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, and then secondly, by computing income in terms of section 92 of the Act, by making addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment, if warranted. The additional ground raised under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, is, therefore, dismissed

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

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

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

UNIVERSAL PRECISION SCREWS,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singhi.T.A. No.1454/Del/2015 (Assessment Years 2010-11)

section 24(b) talks of allowing deduction for the interest payable by the assessee where property has been acquired, constructed, 9 repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital. The assessee has admittedly shown some income from let out property under the head 'Income from house property.' Once some term loan has been taken for acquiring or constructing, etc., the property

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, 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

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

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

Appeal is allowed and order of the High Court is set aside

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

10B and clause (b) of Explanation to section 80HHE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby specifies the following information technology enabled products or services, as the case may be, for the purpose of said clauses, namely: (1) Back-office Operations, (ii) Call Centers (iii) Content Development or Animation (iv) Data

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

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

GREAT EASTERN EXPORTS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading “C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, where any goods or services held for the purposes of the undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee or where any goods or services held

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

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 that the in-principle approval was received from RBI on 29.3.200 and also considering the agreements dated between the promotes (transferor) and System America Holding LLC, Mauritius (Transferee