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)

80A(5) and 80AC, it emerges that to make a claim u/s 801A, the assessee is simply required to file the return of income u/s 139(1) and the claim can be made in the Page revised return of income also i.e. there is no bar for making the claim even in the return of income filed

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

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment completed vide order dated 16.01.2014 under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), is illegal and bad in law. 1.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the impugned assessment

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

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

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

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”).

1) of the Act claiming part relief. That being the case, the mere fact that the assessee revised it’s very claim would not attract 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

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

1) by way of filing a declaration. Although the said decision was in the context of withdrawal of exemption under Section 10B of the Act, in our considered view, when it comes to the interpretation of exemption and deduction provisions, the said provisions should be strictly interpreted so as to achieve the larger intent of the Legislature. Therefore

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

1) by way of filing a declaration. Although the said decision was in the context of withdrawal of exemption under Section 10B of the Act, in our considered view, when it comes to the interpretation of exemption and deduction provisions, the said provisions should be strictly interpreted so as to achieve the larger intent of the Legislature. Therefore

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

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

68-93 @ 75 of supp PB- II explaining the industrial scenario in\ndetail, including the fact that initially incentives were extended\nin the form of cash subsidies, which was later extended in the\nform of sales tax exemption;\n• Letter dtd. 30.11.2013 of Administrator of UT of Dadra & Nagar\nHaveli (@pgs 58-60 @ 58 of supp PB-II), which categorically

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

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

section 40A (2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered by the assessee on account of commercial expediency and when the recipients had paid tax on payments received from the assessee company, disallowance could not be made by applying provisions

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