DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VICTORY PORTFOLIO LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishivictory Portfolio Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur Circle-17(1), Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaafv9634K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Victory Portfolio Ltd, Circle-17(1), 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur New Delhi Commercial Complex, New Delhi Pan: Aaafv9634K (Appellant) (Respondent)

88E of the act. The learned assessing officer worked out 30% of the interest income of INR 8 90692/– as ineligible sum for rebate. The learned CIT – A deleted the above addition and directed the learned assessing officer to grant rebate giving a finding and relying upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs Producin private

PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

TDS, it cannot be inferred by the Assessing Officer that it is STT. Moreover, as we have already mentioned that for the purpose of Section 88E

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

88E of the Act after holding that the same needs more careful examination on the part of the Assessing Officer. This itself indication of the fact that this is not the case of lack of enquiry, but at the highest it can be a case of inadequate enquiry. It is settled position in law that inadequate enquiry by itself would