DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2. CIT(A) erred in invoking provisions of section 145(3) to reject Books of accounts even when the prevalent facts did not require rejection simply because purchases to the extent of Rs.2,12,26,191/- were found to be inflated. 1 Prahlad 3. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.96

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

TDS 2, Rajkot Vs. Muktanadgiri Maheshgiri vs. District Development 23. Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Hisar Vs. Hari Singh Saini in ITA No.1539/Del/2020 24. In the case of Mahender pal Narang Vs. CBDT New Delhi [ 2020] 120 taxmann.com 400 ( P & H) 25. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. vs. The Chief Engineer

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

TDS-1, Surat [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Gujrat). 8. Per Contra, the Learned DR relying upon the orders passed by the both authorities below, submitted that the Legislature introduced the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) vide an amendment, by the Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01/04/2010, and inserted “income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3) invoked by the AO for rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC to the tune of Rs. 4,67,93,495/- for her Dehradun Unit whereas the assessee had not fulfilled all the conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80IC

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

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

145(2) mandate that the concept of materiality be taken into consideration when finalizing the accounts of an assessee. 7.24 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 at page 103(SC), has noted with approval, the observations of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

145(2) mandate that the concept of materiality be taken into consideration when finalizing the accounts of an assessee. 7.24 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 at page 103(SC), has noted with approval, the observations of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

145 TAXMAN 549 (CAL.) vide order dated 07.10.2004\nc. Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Deluxe Enterprises v. ITO, Ward-1 Solan [2017] 88 taxmnan.com 771 (Chandigarh-Trib.)\nd. Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India [1956] 29 ITR 717 (SC)\nii.\nCrux of the pronouncements -aforementioned well-settled judicial

JAGJIT SINGH KATARIA,SONEPAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ROHTAK

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

TDS vs Muktanangiri Maheshgiri CA No 18475 of 2017(SC); iii. Sh Puneet Singh Karnal vs ACIT Delhi ITAT dated 08.12.2022; Decisions cited in Kamla Devi vs ITO [2022] ITA No 1418/Del/2022 dated 21.09.2022(PB 107-113) iv. Paramjeet Singh vs ACIT Karnal ITA No 1393/Del/2017 dated 16.04.2021 v. Ram Kishan vs ITO ITA No 5391/Del/2017 dated 02.12.2020 vi. Nitya

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 of this Article, items of income beneficially owned by a resident of a Contracting State, wherever arising, other than income paid out of trusts or the estates of deceased persons in the course of administration, which are not dealt with in the foregoing Articles of this Convention, shall be taxable only in that State. 2. The provisions of paragraph

SH. NITYA NAND,,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31/03/2014, declaring income of ₹ 3,84,480/- including presumptive income of ₹ 2,45,000/- under section 44AE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In the return of income, interest received of ₹ 83,68,370/- on enhanced compensation for agricultural

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145, which concerns are correct and complete account but which, in the opinion of the officer, does not disclose the true and proper income.” 35. Further at page number 53 the honourable Supreme Court further held that:- “it is not only the right but the duty of the assessing officer to consider whether or not the books disclose

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

145 A of the Act. 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing officer failed to appreciate that in accordance with the consistent, regular and accepted method of valuation of inventory followed by the appellant, the aforesaid costs being incurred in exceptional situations, are not to be considered for the purposes of valuation of closing inventory

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANIPAT vs. GURDEV SINGH , PANIPAT

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Room No. 203, Vs. Gurdev Singh, First Floor, Aayakar 1, Village Rajapur, Post Bhawan, Sector-6, Office Dadlana, Panipat Panipat-132024 (Pan: Fwxps8888E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025

TDS amount to Rs. 10,26,954/-. Thus, total compensation awarded to the assessee is of Rs. 1,87,94,001/-. Out of this compensation it is certified that total amount of Rs. 1,02,69,536/- is awarded as interest and balance amount of Rs. 85,24,465/- as enhance compensation in respect of agricultural land situated at village

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

TDS where ever required in accordance with the aircraft etc. as per the assessee. Thus the assessee submitted before the ITO that these payments are covered under the exemptions available under DTAA not chargeable to tax u/s 5(2) read with Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further they are taxed with the relevant country. Therefore, provisions

DLF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

TDS where ever required in accordance with the aircraft etc. as per the assessee. Thus the assessee submitted before the ITO that these payments are covered under the exemptions available under DTAA not chargeable to tax u/s 5(2) read with Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further they are taxed with the relevant country. Therefore, provisions