INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 68 of the Act, the Court held that: ITA No.972 of 2009 Page 52 of 58 1o '.The obtaining

CIT vs. LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 68 of the Act, the Court held that: ITA No.972 of 2009 Page 52 of 58 1o '.The obtaining

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHAM MOHAN PVT LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act, the Court held that: ITA No.972 of 2009 Page 52 of 58 2011:DHC:12088-DB 1o

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIJAY FOILS P.LTD.

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act, the Court held that: ITA No.972 of 2009 Page 52 of 58 2011:DHC:12058-DB 1o

INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act, the Court held that: ITA No.972 of 2009 Page 52 of 58 2011:DHC:12104-DB 1o

HINDUSTAN AQUA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 Moon Beverages Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

68 of the Act [as applicable for A Y 2013-14 onwards] is sustainable.” 7. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that effect from assessment year 2013-14 onwards, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) are attracted to the case of the assessee. He observed that the share premium charged by the assessee clearly falls within the mischief

MOON BEVERAGES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 Moon Beverages Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

68 of the Act [as applicable for A Y 2013-14 onwards] is sustainable.” 7. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that effect from assessment year 2013-14 onwards, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) are attracted to the case of the assessee. He observed that the share premium charged by the assessee clearly falls within the mischief

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 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission

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 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission

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 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission

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 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission

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 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 19 evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ERICSSON RADIO SYSTEM A.B.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

1o stretch it ca1 be saicl that the i services. offered by thg Supply Contractol were nerely incidental to the i sale of hardware and the li.cense to use software. On the contrary, sttch services were integrJl to the plopef installation of the entire GSM system. The assesr"" *u, uot merely selling machinery and softwa're but had contlactecl

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GLOBAL ONE INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2005-06 Dcit, Circle 12(1), M/S Global One India Pvt. Ltd., 7Th Floor, Tower-C, Dlf New Delhi Vs. Infinity Tower, Phase-Ii, Sector 25-A, Gurgaon (Aabcg2558B)

68,673/- and amount of assessed loss at Rs. 36,03,300/-. Both these figures are factually incorrect, as the Ld. AO in the original assessment under section 143(3) had assessed the income at Rs. 7,86,86,783/-. Further, the appellant had, during the course of original assessment proceedings, revised the computation of income as the original

B.R. ARORA & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conference) A.Y. : 2010-11

1O,OO,OOO/- 4.1 That the findings for addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- in the absence of providing the copies of all materials used against the assessee and by not providing cross- examination of persons whose statements have been relied upon, thus no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing has been allowed and principles of natural justice is grossly

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4 , NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA- COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

1o 6.l6 and the same is reproduced below for the sake of convenience: ITA No.6297 & 6298/DEL/2018 … Just because the expenditure was voluntary in nature and was not forced on the assessee by a statutory obligation, it could not cease to be a business expenditure. Therefore, the authorities below indeed erred in law in declining deduction of the expenditure incurred

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

1o 6.l6 and the same is reproduced below for the sake of convenience: ITA No.6297 & 6298/DEL/2018 … Just because the expenditure was voluntary in nature and was not forced on the assessee by a statutory obligation, it could not cease to be a business expenditure. Therefore, the authorities below indeed erred in law in declining deduction of the expenditure incurred

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

1o 6.l6 and the same is reproduced below for the sake of convenience: ITA No.6297 & 6298/DEL/2018 … Just because the expenditure was voluntary in nature and was not forced on the assessee by a statutory obligation, it could not cease to be a business expenditure. Therefore, the authorities below indeed erred in law in declining deduction of the expenditure incurred