DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (SUCCESSOR TO AXON SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

HCL TECHNOLOGIES NORWAY AS ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

801A can be claimed even though Form 10CCB was not filed\nwith the return of income but was filed during the course of\nassessment.\n27. To summarize, the ld AR stated that the aforesaid judgement has\nbeen rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of specific\nstatutory timeline for withdrawal of claim as mandated under section\n10B(8), which

JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30, NEW DELHI

801A can be claimed even though Form 10CCB was not filed\nwith the return of income but was filed during the course of\nassessment.\n\n27. To summarize, the ld AR stated that the aforesaid judgement has\nbeen rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of specific\nstatutory timeline for withdrawal of claim as mandated under section\n10B

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

801A can be claimed even though Form 10CCB was not filed\nwith the return of income but was filed during the course of\nassessment.\n\n27. To summarize, the ld AR stated that the aforesaid judgement has\nbeen rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of specific\nstatutory timeline for withdrawal of claim as mandated under section\n10B

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

801A can be claimed even though Form 10CCB was not filed\nwith the return of income but was filed during the course of\nassessment.\n\n27. To summarize, the ld AR stated that the aforesaid judgement has\nbeen rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of specific\nstatutory timeline for withdrawal of claim as mandated under section\n10B

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

801A can be claimed even though Form 10CCB was not filed\nwith the return of income but was filed during the course of\nassessment.\n\n27. To summarize, the ld AR stated that the aforesaid judgement has\nbeen rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of specific\nstatutory timeline for withdrawal of claim as mandated under section\n10B

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

801A can be claimed even though Form 10CCB was not filed\nwith the return of income but was filed during the course of\nassessment.\n\n27. To summarize, the ld AR stated that the aforesaid judgement has\nbeen rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of specific\nstatutory timeline for withdrawal of claim as mandated under section\n10B

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

801A can be claimed even though Form 10CCB was not filed\nwith the return of income but was filed during the course of\nassessment.\n\n27. To summarize, the ld AR stated that the aforesaid judgement has\nbeen rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of specific\nstatutory timeline for withdrawal of claim as mandated under section\n10B

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

7. Relying on these judgments, it was contended that the interest received or the consideration received from sale of import entitlement has no direct nexus with the profits and gains derived from the export of software and therefore, the assessee is not eligible for exemption. All the judgments were rendered prior to the amendment in the year 2001 and therefore