DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings along with reply on the merits of the proposed disallowances were filed vide letter dated 08.02.2008, 29.05.2008 & 17.09.2008. (@ PB pg 47-99) Reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.11.2008 at total income of Rs.32,60,00,451 after making following disallowances: • Excess claim disallowed u/s 80HHE in respect of Leela Galleria

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings along with reply on the merits of the proposed disallowances were filed vide letter dated 08.02.2008, 29.05.2008 & 17.09.2008. (@ PB pg 47-99) Reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.11.2008 at total income of Rs.32,60,00,451 after making following disallowances: • Excess claim disallowed u/s 80HHE in respect of Leela Galleria

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings along with reply on the merits of the proposed disallowances were filed vide letter dated 08.02.2008, 29.05.2008 & 17.09.2008. (@ PB pg 47-99) Reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.11.2008 at total income of Rs.32,60,00,451 after making following disallowances: • Excess claim disallowed u/s 80HHE in respect of Leela Galleria

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

7) of sec. 10A provides that: „The provisions of sub-sec. (8) and sub-sec. (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80IA‟. The essence of this provision is that the disabling provisions

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

7) of sec. 10A provides that: „The provisions of sub-sec. (8) and sub-sec. (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80IA‟. The essence of this provision is that the disabling provisions

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

10A, section\n12A, section 32AB, section 33AB, section 33ABA, section\n35D, section 35E, section 44AB, section 44DA, section\n50B, section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80JJAA,\nsection 92F, section 115JB, section 115JC and section\n115VW of the Act are proposed to be amended\naccordingly.\"\n\n13.\nAccording to learned counsel, it was the aforesaid\nrationale which informed the amendments

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee qua Ground No.1 reiterated the written submissions. For the sake of clarity, the relevant contents of the written submissions are reproduced as under:- “Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trustees of H.E.H The 1. Nizam's Supplemental family Trust vs CIT, 242 ITR 381 Held that unless the return of income already

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee qua Ground No.1 reiterated the written submissions. For the sake of clarity, the relevant contents of the written submissions are reproduced as under:- “Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trustees of H.E.H The 1. Nizam's Supplemental family Trust vs CIT, 242 ITR 381 Held that unless the return of income already

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT SMARTSERVE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlaand Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2005-06] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Niit Smartserve Ltd Circle – 18(2) 8, Balaji Estate New Delhi Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E & Co No. 217/Del/2018 (In Ita No.5173/Del/2015) [Assessment Year: 2005-06] Niit Smartserve Ltd Vs. The Dcit 8, Balaji Estate Circle – 18(2) Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020

7. A detailed reply was filed by the assessee vide letter dated 05.12.2007 explaining the nature, details and breakup of such expenses. No further query/clarification was sought by the Assessing Officer. 8. However, based on the audit objection reassessment proceedings were initiated vide notice dated 23.03.2012. The reasons for reopening the assessment read as under: 9. The reassessment proceedings were

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7 confirms that the principle reflected in Article 7(2) - corresponds to the arm‘s length principle which is also applicable, under the provisions of Article 9, for the purpose of adjusting the profits of associated enterprises. The arm‘s length principle has thus always been at the heart of Article 7. v. Thus according to him authorized OECD approach

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7 confirms that the principle reflected in Article 7(2) - corresponds to the arm‘s length principle which is also applicable, under the provisions of Article 9, for the purpose of adjusting the profits of associated enterprises. The arm‘s length principle has thus always been at the heart of Article 7. v. Thus according to him authorized OECD approach

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7 confirms that the principle reflected in Article 7(2) - corresponds to the arm‘s length principle which is also applicable, under the provisions of Article 9, for the purpose of adjusting the profits of associated enterprises. The arm‘s length principle has thus always been at the heart of Article 7. v. Thus according to him authorized OECD approach

M/S SMART CUBE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Stay Application No.109/Del Of 2018 (In Ita No.5473/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings to convert the claim originally made u/s 10B of the Act into a claim u/s 10A of the Act. Learned CIT(A), therefore, turned down the claim of the assessee u/s 10A of the Act. 4. Challenging this finding, the assessee is in appeal before us. The assessee also filed Stay Application seeking stay of demand of Rs.2

PUSHP STEELS & MINING (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

10A, 147, 148.” 6.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) [affirming CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) (FB)] J. Kapadia held that the concept of ‘change of opinion’ must be treated as an in-built test to check abuse

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

10A, HOSPITAL STREET, (P) LTD. KOLKATA- 700072 2,500,000 2,000,000 50000 12 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. 2.4. Similar was the case with the Delhi based companies. The A.O, therefore, confronted the same to the assessee. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee and observing that all companies from whom

M/S. SAHDEV JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

reassessment proceeding were again initiated by way of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27/03/2009 after recording reasons. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the assessee treated the interest income from fixed deposits with banks as margin money for getting credit facilities from the bank as business income. The Assessing Officer recorded

M/S. SAHDEV JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

reassessment proceeding were again initiated by way of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27/03/2009 after recording reasons. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the assessee treated the interest income from fixed deposits with banks as margin money for getting credit facilities from the bank as business income. The Assessing Officer recorded

M/S. SAHDEV JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

reassessment proceeding were again initiated by way of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27/03/2009 after recording reasons. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the assessee treated the interest income from fixed deposits with banks as margin money for getting credit facilities from the bank as business income. The Assessing Officer recorded