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

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

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

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 Pvt. Ltd. 2011-12 29.09.2011 30.09.2011 30.09.2012 2012-13 12.10.2012 2

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

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

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

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

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

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 as “derived” from the eligible business u/s 80P(2

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)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION 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)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), 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)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION 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)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB