DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

Section 10B of the Act." 68. So, following the findings returned by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINEET SOOD & SONS (HUF), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita No. 6205/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Acit Vs. Vineet Sood & Sons (Huf), Circle 28(1), G-53, Sarita Vihar, New New Delhi Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaahv3031Q)

section 10B of the Income Tax Act exempts profits of the undertaking “from export” and not “entire profits”. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. The brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

10B of the Act went into the question whether conversion of standard gold into ornaments would amount to ―manufacture‖ or ―production‖. It was held as under:- ―10. The word ―manufacture‖ can be given, both a wider as well as a narrower connotation. In wider sense, it simply means to make, fabricate or bring into existence an article or product either

NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishintt Data Global Delivery Vs. Dcit, Services Ltd, Circle-13(1), No. 17, South End Road, New Delhi Bangalore Pan: Aabck7777J (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,037/- on the Short Term Deposits made by it to the tune of Rs. 6,46,88,606/- out of its Surplus Funds temporarily parked in the Current Account held in Citi Bank, Hong Kong and also earned interest of Rs. 6,02,309/- from the Advances of loans to its staff members. The deduction in respect of both

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

section 10B of the Act allowable to the assessee at ₹89,68,09,126/- as follows: Total profit of the business

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

section 10B of the Act allowable to the assessee at ₹89,68,09,126/- as follows: Total profit of the business

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

section 10B of the Act allowable to the assessee at ₹89,68,09,126/- as follows: Total profit of the business

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

section 10B of the Act allowable to the assessee at ₹89,68,09,126/- as follows: Total profit of the business

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

M/S. MARATHON ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

10B. Whether or not to enter into the transaction is for the assessee to decide. ” The quantum of expenditure can no doubt be examined by the TPO as per law but in judging the allowability thereof as business expenditure, he has no authority to disallow’ the entire expenditure or a part thereof on the ground that the assessee has suffered

MARATHON ELECTRIC INDIA (P) LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

10B. Whether or not to enter into the transaction is for the assessee to decide. ” The quantum of expenditure can no doubt be examined by the TPO as per law but in judging the allowability thereof as business expenditure, he has no authority to disallow’ the entire expenditure or a part thereof on the ground that the assessee has suffered

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifically left the question of retrospectivity to be decided in other appeals filed by the Revenue. We thus have proceeded

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifically left the question of retrospectivity to be decided in other appeals filed by the Revenue. We thus have proceeded

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.

10B and 80HHE of the Act into Section 80IC of the Act was at best a self serving attempt to justify its stand and that the assessee’s business of supplying manpower from IT jobs may not fall within the meaning of “Information and Communication Technology Industry”. The ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the assessee supplied a breakup

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.

10B and 80HHE of the Act into Section 80IC of the Act was at best a self serving attempt to justify its stand and that the assessee’s business of supplying manpower from IT jobs may not fall within the meaning of “Information and Communication Technology Industry”. The ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the assessee supplied a breakup

AVALON BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-41(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12

68,77,750/-. 2. Brief facts of the case, as are relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are that the assessee is a partnership firm, having registered as a 100% Export- Oriented Undertaking (EOU) with the Software Technology Park (Noida) for the Development/Manufacture and Export of Computer Software/IT enabled services vide Letter of Permission No. STPIN/APP/1152020/201299/70562 dated

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

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

10B(8), which cannot be applied in other case, much less in the case like the present one where there is no specific statutory time limit for claiming non-taxability of subsidy incentive. 28. The ld AR is placed specific reliance upon the decision of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Wipro Finance

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

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

10B(8), which cannot be applied in other case, much less in the case like the present one where there is no specific statutory time limit for claiming non-taxability of subsidy incentive. 28. The ld AR is placed specific reliance upon the decision of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Wipro Finance