ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings also, the assessee filed written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his order. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned income shown

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs 1,04,90,324/- out of the total depreciation allowance claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO / CIT(A) erred

M/S. MADURA BIOTECH (P) LTD.,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and lead us to the conclusion that the assessee is indulging in activities of a trader in shares. As observed in Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (supra), it is a manner of first impression

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation allowance of Rs. 1,82,35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation allowance of Rs. 1,82,35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred

NARENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 7, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh

section 263 a show- cause notice has to be sent to the assessee and the notice should contain reasons as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He submitted that in the case of CIT vs. Sattan Dass Mohan Dass Sidhi 230 ITR 591, 594 (MP), it was held that the order passed

RADIALS INTERNATIONAL vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management 2014:Dhc:2173-Db

capital gains for shares held longer than 12 months, as well as the claim for concession at the rate of 10% under section 111A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT LTD

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

capital gains under Section 111A which had been brought into the Act with effect from 1st April 2005. Treating the entire

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT LTD

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

capital gains under Section 111A which had been brought into the Act with effect from 1st April 2005. Treating the entire

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, , LTU, NEW DELHI

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act.\n3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding a\ndisallowance of Rs.37,54,602/- out of the total depreciation\nallowance of Rs.1,29,46,903/- claimed by the appellant under\nsection 32 of the Act.\n3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/CIT

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. NARENDRA AGGARWAL DECEASED THROUGH LRS

capital gains received for imposition of tax albeit at 15% under Section 111A of the Act. The PCIT has noted

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, , LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the both appeals of the Assessee in ITA\nNo

gains of a business shall be added back;\"\n11.7 Prior to the amendment made by Finance (No. 2) Act 1998 with\nretrospective effect from 01st April 1989, Rule 5(a) restricted adjustment\nonly vis a vis “expenditure or allowance....not admissible under the\nprovisions of section 30 to 43B”. Finance (No. 2) Act 1998 expanded the\nscope of adjustment even

BHUSHAN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed as aforesaid

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

111A of the Act. 2. That the order dated 09-08-2021 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 23, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

BHUSHAN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed as aforesaid

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

111A of the Act. 2. That the order dated 09-08-2021 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 23, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action