← All Phrases

“Section 13(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(2)241 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(2) is ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278), cited in 390 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(2)

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
390
citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
328
citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

Judgments citing Section 13(2)

R.D.Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (Now Assessed by the Asstt.CIT 17(3)), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3081/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri S N Kabra
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

provisions of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5) of the Act. Further, the Assessee had also violated the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as the Assessee-Trust had invested funds in Tata Sons Limited - a company in which Mr. Ratan N. Tata ... 3081/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “5. By investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., Tata Chemicals Ltd., the assessee has also violated section 13(2)(h) of the Act. Section 13(2)(h) states that if any funds of the trust are invested or continue to remain invested

Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 986/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 986/मुं/2021(िन.व.2016-17) Sheila Gopal Foundation Vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor (Exemptions), Room No.617, 6Th Floor, 623, Linking Road, Khar (West) Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400 052 Mumbai-400 052 Pan : Aabts5672B Appellant Respondent

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Exemptions) has erred in holding & confirming that A.O. invoked the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act to deny exemptions claimed u/s 11 of the Act. Consequently, the A.O. taxed the surplus of the appellant ... holding the assessee as not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to violation of provisions of section 13(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) issued a show cause notice under section 263 on 09/02/2021 raising following issues

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

Rukminiamma (supra) dealt with the meaning of expression 'a residential house' used in Section54(1) of the Act while taking into account Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 held that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the words in singular shall include

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6459/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 25

Council 7. The Assessing Officer (pages 8-10 of the assessment order) held that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with sections 13(2) and 13(3) were applicable in the case of the assessee and, hence, the benefit under section 11 would be unavailable to the assessee ... page 8, last para; page 9, 6th para and page 13, 4th para after the table). 8. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer referred to sections 13(2)(a), (c), (g) and (h). With a view to examine whether the payment made by the assessee to HRG was excessive, he called

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (E) RG 1, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7108/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 25

Council 7. The Assessing Officer (pages 8-10 of the assessment order) held that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with sections 13(2) and 13(3) were applicable in the case of the assessee and, hence, the benefit under section 11 would be unavailable to the assessee ... page 8, last para; page 9, 6th para and page 13, 4th para after the table). 8. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer referred to sections 13(2)(a), (c), (g) and (h). With a view to examine whether the payment made by the assessee to HRG was excessive, he called

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2162/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered ... Chairman. Accordingly, the AO held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.3 In appeal, the CIT(A) vide

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2161/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered ... Chairman. Accordingly, the AO held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.3 In appeal, the CIT(A) vide

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2116/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered ... Chairman. Accordingly, the AO held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.3 In appeal, the CIT(A) vide

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered ... Chairman. Accordingly, the AO held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.3 In appeal, the CIT(A) vide

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1316/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered ... Chairman. Accordingly, the AO held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.3 In appeal, the CIT(A) vide

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1314/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered ... Chairman. Accordingly, the AO held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.3 In appeal, the CIT(A) vide

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered ... Chairman. Accordingly, the AO held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.3 In appeal, the CIT(A) vide

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered ... Chairman. Accordingly, the AO held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.3 In appeal, the CIT(A) vide

Shahshib Minority Welfare and Educational Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(E), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2875/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Gangadhar Saastry, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Ananda H., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)

order without giving notice to appellant u/s 251(2) and appellant was prevented to explain the exact position and appellant has not violated section 13(2)(a) and section 13(2)(b). Hon’ble ITAT may kindly examine the facts and allow the appeal and render justice to the appellant ... order passed by CIT(A) has not examine the facts properly and on surmise concluded that trustees have gained benefit by violation of section 13(2)(a) and 13(2)(b). Appellant 2 M/s.Shahshib Minority Welfare and Educational Society. has not violated condition hence Hon’ble ITAT may kindly allow

Sunandan Kumar Minocha, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3135/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harpal Singh, Senior DR
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 54

consonance with the other words 'buildings' and 'lands' and, therefore, the singular 'a residential house' also permits use of plural by virtue of Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act.” 9. Since there are favourable judgments in support of the contention raised by the assessee, therefore, we hold that

DCIT, Exemption, Ghaziabad vs. Hardayal Charitable and Educational Trust, Firozabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4389/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Hardayal Charitable & Exemption, Educational Trust, 318-Shambu Ghaziabad. Nagar, Shikohabad, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aaath7652M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rahul Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2021

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)

diverted and retained/ utilized by the for their benefit. The trust therefore, violated provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(2)(b) & 13(2)(g) of the Act. Therefore, exemption u/s 11 is being denied to the assessee.” 9. Further, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition ... given in the original assessment seems to have not been given any reference to, therefore there is no adverse finding in terms of section 13(2)(b) of the Act for disallowing the corpus donation, which has either been recorded by the AO or for that matter even the provision

Shri Anil Nanda, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3318/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Anil Nanda, Vs Dcit, 12-C, Friends Colony, Circle-68(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aafpn4381A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St March, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.8,25,64,675/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30Th October, 2009 Accepting The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 After Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 246

this section while in other sections like section 13(1)(d)(i), the word “deposit” has been used as against ”loan” in section 13(2)(a). Thus, the two terms have been used differently by the legislature. 13. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the balance sheet

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI