DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS etc within the statutory due dates as is clear from the following records: Assessment Year Date of filling Income Tax Return Due Date 2006-07 20.11.2006 30.11.2006 2007-08 29.10.2007 31.10.2007 2008-09 25.09.2008 30.09.2008 2009-10 29.09.2009 30.09.2009 2010-11 28.09.2010 30.09.2010 2011-12 29.09.2011 30.09.2011 2012-13 12.10.2012 30.09.2012 2) The turnover of the company has also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS etc within the statutory due dates as is clear from the following records: Assessment Year Date of filling Income Tax Return Due Date 2006-07 20.11.2006 30.11.2006 2007-08 29.10.2007 31.10.2007 2008-09 25.09.2008 30.09.2008 2009-10 29.09.2009 30.09.2009 2010-11 28.09.2010 30.09.2010 2011-12 29.09.2011 30.09.2011 2012-13 12.10.2012 30.09.2012 2) The turnover of the company has also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS etc within the statutory due dates as is clear from the following records: Assessment Year Date of filling Income Tax Return Due Date 2006-07 20.11.2006 30.11.2006 2007-08 29.10.2007 31.10.2007 2008-09 25.09.2008 30.09.2008 2009-10 29.09.2009 30.09.2009 2010-11 28.09.2010 30.09.2010 2011-12 29.09.2011 30.09.2011 2012-13 12.10.2012 30.09.2012 2) The turnover of the company has also

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

TDS etc within the statutory due dates as is clear from the following records: Assessment Year Date of filling Income Tax Return Due Date 2006-07 20.11.2006 30.11.2006 2007-08 29.10.2007 31.10.2007 2008-09 25.09.2008 30.09.2008 2009-10 29.09.2009 30.09.2009 2010-11 28.09.2010 30.09.2010 4 Synergy Waste Management

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LIMITED,BADAYUN vs. ACIT - 2, MORADABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Vs. Acit-2, Limited, Moradabad C/O-Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aazfs2514E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

section 80P relief as interest on TDS refund of Rs.12,00,650/- is concerned, the same admittedly could not be held

DIVYA CREATION,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Divya Creation, Vs. Pr. Cit, Plot No. 97, Nsez, Noida Aayakar Bhawan, A2 D- Block, Sector 24, Noida Pan :Aadfd4879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, the Ld. DR submitted that Assessing Officer has allowed excess deduction as compared to allowable deduction as per Auditor’s Report in form No. 56F and which requires examination. On the issue related to deduction under section 10A on interest income of Rs.66,68,296/- earned on various FDR’s is concerned, the Ld. DR submitted that

DCIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. MORADABAD ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD., MORADABAD

In the result the appeal of the ld AO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Moradabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd, Circle-1, Court Road, Moradabad Moradabad Pan: Aaabm0292N (Appellant) (Respondent)

80P(d ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without allowing a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the correctness of the additional evidence as provided in Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. 8. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)/(Appeal)), Moradabad

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Galleria Condominium Vs Ito, Association, Galleria Building, Ward-1(3), Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaaag3018P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rishabh Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Jaishree, Ca Respondent By Shri Mithalesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As interest income is disbursed to members who had contributed to it. 4. Further as per verdict of Bangalore Club v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Interest income is not taxable as concept of mutuality has been extended to define groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled

THE BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS of Rs1,70,145/- or debited the source of funds of the Society is borrowing from members on which interest is paid. The total interest paid on deposits is Rs. 64,85,123/-against the total fund value of Rs. 10,83, 12,000/-. The average cost of funds placed in FDR (Rs.1,88,21,976/-) would work

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKALL CADRE CO. T&C SOCIIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-52(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

80P is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed. 3. That the order of the Learned CIT (Appeal)-18, New Delhi in confirming the addition of Rs.73,538/- being the amount of expenses incurred by the assessee as legal charges Rs.33,949/- and Rs.39,589/- towards audit fees is totally wrong, bad in law and needs

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in not granting credit of tax of INR 1,92,29,851 withheld by income-tax department on interest on income tax refund. 8. Erroneous computation of tax liability That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ADDL. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

M/S MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ADDL. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

M/S. M.NAGAR DISTT. CO-OP DEVELOPMENT FED. LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. JCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit the learned CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee from the records and allow the tax credit. However, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit the learned CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee from the records and allow the tax credit. However, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

TDS credit of Rs.6,85,312/- deducted by Oriental Bank of Commerce and Form 16A provided to assessee. Page 5 of 52 ITA No.5167/Del/2019 & Ors. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA No.4100/Del/2019 for AY 2013-14 (Revenue) “1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing