FIS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 3595/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Fis Global Business Solutions India Vs Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., S-405, Lgf, Greater Circle-7(1), Kailash, Part-Ii, Delhi-110048 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach2815H Assessee By : Ms. Sumish Murgai, Ca, Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Ms. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Yogeshwer Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024–25/1074701797(1) Dated 19.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 14(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

section 80A(5) of the Act as clinching statutory expression “return” incorporated therein would deem to have included even a revised one as well or belated return as held in Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 68

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

80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under Section 10B(1) read with Section 10B(4) or to whittle down the ambit of those provisions as is sought to be suggested by Mr. Manchanda. Also, he is not right in contending that the decisions of the High Courts referred to above have

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

80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under Section 10B(1) read with Section 10B(4) or to whittle down the ambit of those provisions as is sought to be suggested by Mr. Manchanda. Also, he is not right in contending that the decisions of the High Courts referred to above have

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under Section 10B(1) read with Section 10B(4) or to whittle down the ambit of those provisions as is sought to be suggested by Mr. Manchanda. Also, he is not right in contending that the decisions of the High Courts referred to above have

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

68,615 2008-09 19,48,518 4,86,899 99,78,644 1,24,14,061 Total 4,78,71,741 6,89,54,000 1,15,50,990 12,83,76,731 7. Assessee also gave point wise details and the breakup of the plant and machinery acquired. Thereafter, assessee after explaining the details of addition

M/S. HIMALYA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

68,615 2008-09 19,48,518 4,86,899 99,78,644 1,24,14,061 Total 4,78,71,741 6,89,54,000 1,15,50,990 12,83,76,731 7. Assessee also gave point wise details and the breakup of the plant and machinery acquired. Thereafter, assessee after explaining the details of addition

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

68,615 2008-09 19,48,518 4,86,899 99,78,644 1,24,14,061 Total 4,78,71,741 6,89,54,000 1,15,50,990 12,83,76,731 7. Assessee also gave point wise details and the breakup of the plant and machinery acquired. Thereafter, assessee after explaining the details of addition

LOGICS POWERAMR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,986/-, thus resulting in the income of Rs. 19,24,14,160/- (after rounding of). The appellant filed an application u/ s. 154 which was rejected and further a grievance petition was filed on 29.01.2018 in which it was stated to the appellant that the return has been filed after the due date of filing of return. For such

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

68,856/- made to the overseas entity, since the assessee bonafidely believed that such certification fee was not liable to tax in India, as the same was not covered within the meaning of “ Fee for Technical Services” as provided u/s 9(1) (vii) of the Act and/or the overriding provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements. The aforesaid issue stands

K R PULP AND PAPERS LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-19 , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

80A(6) as well as clause (i)\nof the Explanation to Section 801A(8) have been brought to the\nstatute book by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1st April\n2013.\n21. Now coming to the facts of the present case where the TPO\nhad evaluated and compared the transactions with reference to the\naverage price

K.R.PULP AND PAPERS LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

80A(6) as well as clause (i)\nof the Explanation to Section 801A(8) have been brought to the\nstatute book by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1st April\n2013.\n\n21. Now coming to the facts of the present case where the TPO\nhad evaluated and compared the transactions with reference to the\naverage price

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

80A(5) and Section 80AC are satisfied is contrary to law and devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 61. Coming to the issue on merits of claim of exemption of sales tax subsidy being in the nature of capital/revenue receipt, we are conscious of the fact that the nature of a subsidy has to be decided on Page

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

80A(5) and Section 80AC are satisfied is contrary to law and devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 61. Coming to the issue on merits of claim of exemption of sales tax subsidy being in the nature of capital/revenue receipt, we are conscious of the fact that the nature of a subsidy has to be decided on Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. DLF POWER LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

68,429/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) was passed on 28.2.2005 and the income was assessed at Rs.11,03,91,000/- under Section 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) exercised jurisdiction under Section

SHAHI EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

80A, where reference is made to section 80-IA, or to transactions as may be prescribed by the Board, if aggregate amount of all such domestic transactions exceeds Rs.5 crore in a year. It is further proposed to amend the meaning of related persons as provided in section 40A to include companies having the same holding company. This

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

80A (5) of the Act.” b) Shree Bhavani Power Projects (P) Lt. Vs. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 733 (Delhi) “31. One of the reasons which appears to have weighed upon the Supreme Court while rendering its decision in Wipro Limited (supra) was of Section 10B being an exemption provision. This is evident from the Supreme Court significantly observing that

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,000 3. Interest from others 11,79,09,000 4. Liquidated Damages 76,71,90,000 5. Excess provision written back 1686,63,72,000 6. Others including sale of directories, 142,90,32,000 publications, forms, waste paper, etc. 6.2. Not convinced with the explanation offered the additions were made in the computation of income made under

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,000 3. Interest from others 11,79,09,000 4. Liquidated Damages 76,71,90,000 5. Excess provision written back 1686,63,72,000 6. Others including sale of directories, 142,90,32,000 publications, forms, waste paper, etc. 6.2. Not convinced with the explanation offered the additions were made in the computation of income made under