DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his 'gross total income'. Sub- section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the 'gross total income' of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his 'gross total income'. Sub- section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the 'gross total income' of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his 'gross total income'. Sub- section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the 'gross total income' of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his 'gross total income'. Sub- section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the 'gross total income' of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his 'gross total income'. Sub- section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the 'gross total income' of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

80C. Therefore, since PPF is covered u/s 10(11), then automatically on the same footing Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 is also covered under the provisions of section 10(11). 5.3. Ld. counsel further submitted that section 192A has specifically been inserted w.e.f. 1.6.2015 for the purpose of TDS

ITO, WARD-63(2), NEW DELHI vs. RAMESH CHAWALA, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Ramesh Chawla, 4872, Opp. Westend Ward-63(2), Vs. Cinema, Phoota Road, New Delhi. Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Pan Aaepc0268N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr.Dr For Assessee : Shri Narender Abrol, Ca

80C of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. called for certain information/documents by issuing notices, in response to which, the assessee offered his explanation. However, the explanations offered by the assessee was not found acceptable to A.O. and, therefore, the A.O. disallowed the 3 ITA.No.7641/Del./2017 Shri Ramesh Chawala, Delhi. expenses claimed and not allowed deductions as claimed

RAHUL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

80C of the Act) 6. Deduction under chapter VIA (10,000) (Section 80TTA of the Act) Total taxable income (as per return of 3,41,81,660 The total tax payable as per the return of income was Rs.2,72,400/-, after claiming relief of Rs.34,14,015/- on account of double taxation under the provisions of Section 90/91

RAVINDER BANSAL,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

80C of the Act) 6. Deduction under chapter VIA (10,000) (Section 80TTA of the Act) Total taxable income (as per return of 3,41,81,660 The total tax payable as per the return of income was Rs.2,72,400/-, after claiming relief of Rs.34,14,015/- on account of double taxation under the provisions of Section 90/91

NEELIMA RAIZADA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), NOIDA

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

section 199 of I.T. Act, 1961, the entire amount corresponding to that amount of TDS became the income of the appellant in the year in which the appellant had claimed the credit of the TDS. As the appellant has claimed the credit for the TDS of Rs. 1.07,738/- in the AY 2010-2011 to which the impugned assessment order

DCIT, NAJIBABAD vs. DR. SIRISH KUMAR, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Sirish Kumar, Circle – Najibabad, Prop. Shree Hospital, Kiratpur Najibabad Road, Bijnor. Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.65/Del/2016 [In Ita No.4578/Del/2015] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sirish Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Prop. Shree Hospital, Circle – Najibabad, Kiratpur Road, Bijnor. Najibabad Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Ca

TDS of Rs.5,19,052/-. According to Ld. CIT(A) this fact strengthen the submission of the assessee that figures reported in form No. 26AS was not correct. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file an affidavit in support of the claim but did not make any independent enquiry from the ‘ICICI Lombard

SHRI ADITYA MALLA,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

80C at Rs.1,00,000/-, the assessee had claimed TDS at Rs.84,394/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the contents and difference as per 26 AS and return of income. 2.2 Ld. A.O. after examination, found that the assessee had not disclosed salary income of Rs.30,47,245/ received from two other institutions against which

KARTAR SINGH CHOUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing & During Course Of Hearing.”

TDS on salary was made for any employee. Kartar Singh Chauhan vs. ITO " The salary payment made to twelve employees more than 20,000/- was in cash violating the provision of Section 40A(3). " The books of accounts and supporting bills and vouchers could not be produced before the Assessing Officer. " The attendance register could not be produced

NISHIT SAXENA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2009-10

80C) is Rs. 11,19,324/- against the declared income of Rs. 3,59,432/-. On the basis of the above information, I have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment as defined by section 137 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly

SH. MINAKETAN SAMAL,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

80C and 80G for Rs.1,55,500/- paid due taxes payable on the income of Rs.44,02,582/-. Subsequently, the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices have been issued to the Appellant by which the Appellant was show caused as to why the income of the Appellant should not be assessed

DHEERAJ THAKRAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dheeraj Thakran, Vs Ito, C/O Nagesh Bhel & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), 21/25, Moti Nagar, Hsiidc Building, New Delhi. Udyog Vihar-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aewpt8543B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

80C of the IT Act is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) also upheld the same on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding such claim. The ld.CIT(A) also sustained the addition of Rs.84,772/- being interest on savings bank account and Rs.40,819/- being interest on fixed deposits. So far as the addition