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

68,02/- under section 10A of the Act as per the certificate of Chartered Accountant in Form No. 56F dated

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

68,02/- under section 10A of the Act as per the certificate of Chartered Accountant in Form No. 56F dated

DIVYA CREATION,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Divya Creation, Vs. Pr. Cit, Plot No. 97, Nsez, Noida Aayakar Bhawan, A2 D- Block, Sector 24, Noida Pan :Aadfd4879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

10A on interest income of Rs. 66,68,296 as claimed and initiation of section 263 proceedings in this

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

10a to 10i), not only establish, beyond doubt, the identity and genuineness of the aforesaid entities, but also establish the source of funds/creditworthiness. …………. 2.39 Further more, we observed that that Section 68

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

68,98,037 50,90,742 Less : Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 14,22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed section 32(2) for computing

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

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said

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

section 10A in respect of the profits of GNR and BPO units at Rs.27,68,45,650 and Rs.50

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

section 10A in respect of the profits of GNR and BPO units at Rs.27,68,45,650 and Rs.50

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

section 10A in respect of the profits of GNR and BPO units at Rs.27,68,45,650 and Rs.50

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

68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole and not with

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

68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole and not with

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

68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole and not with

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

68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole and not with

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

68. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 2,31,458/- which was claimed as exempt from tax. Invoking provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance at Rs. 32,91,173/-. 69. The assessee carried the matter before

M/S. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

68. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 2,31,458/- which was claimed as exempt from tax. Invoking provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance at Rs. 32,91,173/-. 69. The assessee carried the matter before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

68. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 2,31,458/- which was claimed as exempt from tax. Invoking provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance at Rs. 32,91,173/-. 69. The assessee carried the matter before

M/S. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

68. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 2,31,458/- which was claimed as exempt from tax. Invoking provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance at Rs. 32,91,173/-. 69. The assessee carried the matter before

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

68. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 2,31,458/- which was claimed as exempt from tax. Invoking provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance at Rs. 32,91,173/-. 69. The assessee carried the matter before