India (viii) Pt. Sheonath Prasad Sharma v. CIT

M/S. RELIGARE ENTERPRISE LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

…ct computation of disallowance under section 14A of the Act [refer NTPC: 229 ITR 383 (SC), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.), SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI : 262 ITR 638 (Cal.), Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT: 66 ITR 647 (All), Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO: 30 ITD 161 (Del SB)]. It is pertinent to mention here that similar grounds were raised and allowed in the case of appellant/ applicant itself for preceding assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.1549/Del/2014. In the light of the aforesaid, the additional and/or modified grounds of appeal are being raised. The aforesaid…

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (E) TRUST CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

…ed on the principle of estoppels. Further, Article 265 of the Constitution of India prescribes that no tax can be levied except by authority of law. 7.5 The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pt. SheoNath Prasad Sharma Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 66 ITR 647 (Alld) reminded that the law empowers the Income-tax Officers to assess the income of an Assessee and determine the tax payable thereon in accordance with law. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that just because the Assessee has shown the receipt as income in his return, it does not make him liable to tax thereon. If the Income-tax Officer a…

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (E) TRUST CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

…ed on the principle of estoppels. Further, Article 265 of the Constitution of India prescribes that no tax can be levied except by authority of law. 7.5 The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pt. SheoNath Prasad Sharma Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 66 ITR 647 (Alld) reminded that the law empowers the Income-tax Officers to assess the income of an Assessee and determine the tax payable thereon in accordance with law. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that just because the Assessee has shown the receipt as income in his return, it does not make him liable to tax thereon. If the Income-tax Officer a…

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 16…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 16…

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 16…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 16…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

…sion taken under misconception of law:- i) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229, ITR 383 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del); iii) SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI, 262 ITR 638 (Cal); iv) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 66 ITR 647 (All); and v) Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO, 30 ITD 161 (Del, SB). ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 12. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seeking correct computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of…

M/S. RELIGARE ENTERPRISE LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

…sion taken under misconception of law:- i) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229, ITR 383 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del); iii) SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI, 262 ITR 638 (Cal); iv) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 66 ITR 647 (All); and v) Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO, 30 ITD 161 (Del, SB). ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 12. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seeking correct computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of…

VIKSUN AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Viksun Agro Industries Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-26(1), C.R. Building, C-2/15, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaacv3387N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

…ssessee under a mistake, misconception or not being properly instructed, is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected”. In the case of Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma versus CIT 66 ITR 647 (All), it is held that “it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to determine whether a particular receipt is taxable or not and just because the assessee has shown the receipt as income in his return, it does not make him liable to tax thereon”. 5. In the instant case before us no fresh claim has been made by the assessee and only claim made is to…