DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REGENCY CREATIONS LTD

gains derived by an undertaking from export of articles or things or computer software manufactured or produced by it. The deduction is available for a period of ten consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce such articles or things or computer software. The tax benefit

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

capital receipt and cannot be included in the taxable income. Though this ground raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been recorded in the order, the CIT(A) did not take a decision on the same. Similar ground was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal, which was not considered by the Tribunal, though the Tribunal refers

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

capital receipt and cannot be included in the taxable income. Though this ground raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been recorded in the order, the CIT(A) did not take a decision on the same. Similar ground was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal, which was not considered by the Tribunal, though the Tribunal refers

ASHWANI TALWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaashwani Talwar, Vs. Ito, C/O. Advocate Deepak Ward-7(1), Kapoor, 59, Nehru New Delhi Apartments, Outer Ringh Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaapt0920E

section 10B(8) of the Act. In that case, the assessee filed a declaration in the original return of income not to claim the benefit of carry forward losses of the eligible unit of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Then the assessee filed a declaration not to claim deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Later on, in the revised

ACIT,CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. AKASH PODDAR, NEW DELHI

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

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

capital gains or not. 5 Akash Poddar 9. The provisions of Section 17(3)(iii) reads as under: “Section 17………. (3) "profits in lieu of salary" includes— (i) the amount of any compensation due to or received by an assessee from his employer or former employer at or in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification

PINE PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED

10B, in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking or enterprise. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this section, or under the second proviso to sub-section (4) of section

SHRIMATI SARASWATI MANUJA EDUCATION AND WELL LIVING SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION 2(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat:Ita No. _663/Del/2023 [Assessment Year: 2020-21

capital gain as income under Section 11(3) of 5 the Act, when the same is indeed set apart for a specified purpose “Setting up free coaching cum Study Centre for BPL Card Holders and Other admitted in Form 10B

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

gains which are derived by a 100% export oriented undertaking. (b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts as stated in Sub-section (3) of section 10B that this section applies to the undertaking. If the sale proceeds of articles or things or computer software exported out of India are received in or brought into, India

DCIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JINDAL SAW LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

gains which are derived by a 100% export oriented undertaking. (b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts as stated in Sub-section (3) of section 10B that this section applies to the undertaking. If the sale proceeds of articles or things or computer software exported out of India are received in or brought into, India

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

gains which are derived by a 100% export oriented undertaking. (b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts as stated in Sub-section (3) of section 10B that this section applies to the undertaking. If the sale proceeds of articles or things or computer software exported out of India are received in or brought into, India

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

capital is held by government of NCT of Delhi. As per the provisions of section 143(6) and (7) of the Companies Act, C&AG can conduct a supplementary as well as test audit of the accounts of government company after the receipt of report of statutory auditor and raise comments upon the same. In the present case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, GURGOAN, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2532/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17) Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-3(1)(1), ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Delhi 110002

10B, DLF Cyber City Phase-II, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 PAN: AACCT-4821-F अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent by : S/Shri Deepak Chopra, and Ankul Goyal, Advocates सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 26/07/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

gains derived by such an enterprise. Sub-section (8) thereof enables an assessee to opt out of the exemption provisions contained therein subject to a requisite declaration being submitted. Since such a declaration would have an immediate and indelible bearing on the assessment of the Return of Income itself, it would clearly be liable to be viewed as a mandatory

M/S. RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

10B(2) is not material it cannot be excluded merely on the basis of high or low turnover and high or low profit of the clause or that it follows different financial year. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [(2015) 376 ITR183 (Del.)] 11 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1404 & 1618/Del/2016

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,(ERSTWHILE VCOSTOMER SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

10B(2) is not material it cannot be excluded merely on the basis of high or low turnover and high or low profit of the clause or that it follows different financial year. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [(2015) 376 ITR183 (Del.)] 11 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1404 & 1618/Del/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. QUALCOMM INDIA PVT.LTD.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Capital gains Income from other sources 5.2 The income computed under various heads of income in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the Income-tax Act shall be aggregated in accordance with the provision of Chapter VI of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This means that first the income/loss from various sources, i.e. eligible and ineligible units, under

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

capital, transportation, level of the market, i.e. retail or wholesale and so forth. The Rules and the analytical steps. 71. Sub-Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

10B is back dated and accepted the assessee’s contention on this aspect, but proceeded to issue a notice of enhancement u/s.251 (2) mainly on the following reasons:- (i) That mere registration u/s 12A of the Act is not enough for claiming exemption u/s 11 unless conditions specified in sections 11 to 13 are satisfied. According to him, the person