CIT v. MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd. 96 DTR (Del.) 317 and CIT V/s. NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (96 DTR 281)

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PRICELESS OVERSEAS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6320/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr.DR

…d that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 of the Act in the light of various judgments referred to in the assessment order including judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., 96 DTR 281 (Del). A reference was made to various decisions and observed that mere filing of PAN, acknowledgement of Income Tax return of the entry providers, bank account statement etc. is not necessarily sufficient to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the subscribers are not shown to be known to the assesse…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBN TRANSPORTATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) Asst.CIT M/s Sur Buildcon Central Circle-13, Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Vs. 315, 3rd Floor E-Block International Trade Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi. PAN-AALCF 7467F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.258/Del/2015 Arising out of ITA No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/s Sur Buildcon Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd. Central Circle-13, 315, 3rd Floor Vs. New Delhi. E-Block Internati…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) Asst.CIT M/s Sur Buildcon Central Circle-13, Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Vs. 315, 3rd Floor E-Block International Trade Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi. PAN-AALCF 7467F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.258/Del/2015 Arising out of ITA No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/s Sur Buildcon Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd. Central Circle-13, 315, 3rd Floor Vs. New Delhi. E-Block Internati…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. CYMBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito-12(1)(4) M/S Cymbal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145A, B-204, Kesar Baug, L.T. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Borivali (East), Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400092. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaecc7675C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri V. Chandrasekhar (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar (AR)

Section 253Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…iven. 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition in the backdrop of ruling of Hon'ble Tribunals in the case of CIT V/s. MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd. 96 DTR (Del.) 317 and CIT V/s. NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 96 DTR 281 (Del.) wherein it is ruled that production of PAN numbers, returns etc. is not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. 5. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Share Premium without adhering to cardinal principle laid down by the Hon 'ble Delh…

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…of the legislature to allow the claim of balance 50% additional depreciation in the immediately subsequent year in case of financial years prior to 2015-16. The issue also has been decided by the Tribunal, Chennai Bench in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. (96 DTR 281), where the Tribunal did not allow the balance additional depreciation in subsequent financial year. 34. After hearing both the parties, we find that similar issue was considered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Rittal IndiaPvt Ltd. in vide order dated 24.11.2015 in 2016-TIOL-07-HC-KAR-IT wherein held that:- “It has been…

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1420/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…of the legislature to allow the claim of balance 50% additional depreciation in the immediately subsequent year in case of financial years prior to 2015-16. The issue also has been decided by the Tribunal, Chennai Bench in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. (96 DTR 281), where the Tribunal did not allow the balance additional depreciation in subsequent financial year. 34. After hearing both the parties, we find that similar issue was considered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Rittal IndiaPvt Ltd. in vide order dated 24.11.2015 in 2016-TIOL-07-HC-KAR-IT wherein held that:- “It has been…

AARTI DRUGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6783/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No. 6783-84/Mum/2014,िनधा" रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 आयकर िनधा"रण आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा" िनधा" रण रण वष" वष" Aarti Drugs Limited Addl. Cit, Range-6(1) Plot No.109, ‘D’ 3Rd Floor, Mahendra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Vs. Indl Estate.Sion(E), Mumbai-400 022. Pan: Aaaca 4410 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10 .02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 10Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…of assets, that the additional depreciation had to be computed with reference to the actual cost, that the concept of actual cost would not survive in the second year/subsequent years of acquisition of the assets. She referred to the case of Brakes India Ltd (96 DTR 281) and stated that the assets in question were required in the AY.2009-10 and were put to use in the same year, that the additional depreciation could be claimed in the year of acquisition and not later, that assessee could not claim balance additional depreciation during the current AY.Finally, she upheld the order of the AO. 3.3.Before us the AR…

RKM INFOTECH & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 621/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘F’ New Delhi

For Appellant: ShriN. Chhillar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Negi, Sr-DR

Section 147Section 68

…BEFORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL. VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2002-03 RKM Infotech & Develoeprs P Ltd Vs. The ITO 12, 3rd Floor, Vasan Arcade Ward -15(4) B-7, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi PAN AAACG 9124 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : ShriN. Chhillar, Adv Shri Nipun Kumar Department by : Shri R.S. Negi, Sr-DR Date of Hearing : 01.06.2016 Date of pronouncement : 05.08.2016 O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the…

CIT v. MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd. 96 DTR (Del.) 317 and CIT V/s. NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd.

Judgments citing CIT v. MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd. 96 DTR (Del.) 317 and CIT V/s. NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd.