ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

2(22)(e) of the Act. We therefore sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal no.2 raised by the Revenue in its appeal vide ITA No.5031/Del/2024 vide Page 10 of 54 ITA Nos.5029 & 5031/Del/2024 & CO No.42/Del/2025 and the ground of appeal no.6 raised by the Revenue in its appeal vide ITA No.5029/Del/2024

ATUL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 47(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) Wherein It Was Contended That Provisions Of Section 50C

2) That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding an addition of Rs.2,51,75,550 made by the A.O. by wrongly invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act to the transaction of sale of right to allotment of a residential flat in a project under construction by a builder . b) That the learned CIT (Appeals

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. RIDGEVIEW DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Or At The Time Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3. We Shall Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal Ground Wise.

TDS is enclosed. It may be mentioned here that due to the depressive conditions in the real estate market, the assessee could not raise the funds for payment of the balance purchase consideration in respect of the above mentioned hotel building. The assessee company has sought time for further balance of payment. The vendor has allowed desired time keeping

MANISH TRADERS,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

TDS @10%.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : from the return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 claiming total income of Rs.4,85,000/- after setting of its brought forward losses of Rs.1,15,480/- from AY 2005-06, Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has sold

SHRIM SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

TDS paid to be capitalized) Rs.23,09,175/- Add: Foreclosure of loan charges to be capitalized Rs.20,87,194/- Cost of property : Rs.17,26,98,678/- 2.4 The Assessing Officer ultimately under the provisions of section 50C of the Act, computed the fair market value of the property for the purpose of computing capital gain on 4 the transfer

JCIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. PRASANDI BUILDERS PVT. LTD., MEERUT

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

Section 50C of the Act, but the CIT(A) has not given any finding as to why the Cost Inflation Index Benefit has to be given to the assessee. Therefore, it needs verification of the entire issue. Thus, we are remanding back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and decide the same afresh

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

2 supra that adjustments should not be made on issues which Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 60 of 484 are revenue neutral. Accordingly there is no justification in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance. Accordingly, we reverse the action

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidence under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

CHARM INVESTMENT PVT.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-2 , NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

section 50C in his case and that the reference to the DVO was not mandatory. 2.3 However, the Ld. Pr. CIT did not accept the submissions of the assessee and held that since the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer had been passed without making any enquiries into the claim of the assessee and further because

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOM DATT BUILDERS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[A.Y 2007-08] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Som Datt Builders Pvt Ltd Central Circle - 17 8, Circus Market Place New Delhi Kolkata. Pan : Aaecs 6429 C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca Shri Manish Upnejay, Ca Department By : Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. Dr

2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in directing the AO to reconsider the working of long term capital gain on the basis of revised computation filed by the assessee in the course of assessment and in not confirming the LTCG as compared u/s 50C of the IT Act.” 3. During