TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

c) of the lease agreement, the lessee had to take prior written consent from the Assessee for sub-letting or parting with possession of the premises at 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 9 of 32 Bhiwadi. No such consent had been taken. The questions raised by the AO remained to be satisfactorily

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

c) of the lease agreement, the lessee had to take prior written consent from the Assessee for sub-letting or parting with possession of the premises at 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 9 of 32 Bhiwadi. No such consent had been taken. The questions raised by the AO remained to be satisfactorily

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

c. The decision of the Gujarat High Court was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as C.A. No. 017147 of 2017 in a batch of petition with the lead matter being Union of India vs. Hari Singh and Ors. being CA No. 17041 of2017 (at para 11) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 15.09.2017 referred

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

217 ( P & H) and CIt vs jagriti Aggarwal (supra). The relevant finding of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jagriti Aggarwal (supra) has held that “Sub-s. (4) of s. 139 is in fact, a proviso to sub-s. (1) and provides for extension of period of due date for filing the return in certain

(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

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain is not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act. 24. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The questions framed above are answered in favour of the appellant assessee and against the respondent revenue. The first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative. No costs

KAMLESH KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

C I T [ A . Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 ] 2,25,00,000/- and claimed deduction of cost of improvement and purchase of new property against the income shown under the head long term capital gain. The appellant has claimed the cost of improvement in the FY 1983-84, 1990-91 & 2003-04 at Rs.43,25,217/-, Rs.27

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

gains falling within the following classes shall not be included in the total income of the person receiving them: (i) Subject to the provision of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 16, any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes, in so far as such income is applied

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)

1 )(iii) of the Act, applying average cost of debts to the amount of capital works-in-progress (CWIP), addition to fixed assets and capital advance, ignoring the material fact that borrowed amounts were not utilised by the assessee for acquiring capital asset and that the interest free owned funds (equity and reserves) were sufficient to meet out such expenditure

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

217 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN: AABCA8899F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sanjay Garg, CA Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date of Order : 18.12.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. The assessee has filed two appeals against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

217 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN: AABCA8899F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sanjay Garg, CA Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date of Order : 18.12.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. The assessee has filed two appeals against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National

ANIL DUA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -10, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, thus, allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain out of the income on sale of property and deduction under Section 54 claimed thereon does not and cannot arise at all. On revision order passed under Section 263 of the Act is, therefore, not legally sustainable and liable to be quashed. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi in the case of PCIT

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

C-2 in the Indian Bank of MAMCO. On the RHS the entries are the withdrawals from bank. For example, documents referred entry 9.18 means the payments Rs. 9,18,000/- have been made for import. Similarly on page-2 one entry Capital Plastic 25,000/- is on LHS which means rs. 25,000/-has been recd from M/s. Capital

RAKESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7804/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rakesh Gupta, Acit, बनाम H – 87, Ashok Viohar, Circle : 34 (1), Phase – 1, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 052. Pan No. Aewpg7366R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain by various entry operators, but the beneficiaries who had approached with the entry operators. As per the information shared by the DIT, Investigation Wing, Kolkata, the assessee sold the shares of Blue Print Securities Ltd., at a consideration of Rs.20,65,500/-. Therefore, on the basis of this information the assessment of the assessee was re-opened under

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

In the result the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is\nallowed

C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member\nDr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member\nITA No. 1168/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14\nPragati Power Corporation Ltd.,\nHimadari, Rajghat Power House Office\nComplex, Rajghat, New Delhi-110002\n(APPELLANT)\nVs ACIT,\nCircle-20(1),\nNew Delhi\n(RESPONDENT)\nPAN No. AACCP8035F\nAssessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &\nMs. Supriya Mehta, CA\nRevenue

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB, the profit as shown in the profit and loss account, prepared in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, can be adjusted by the amount of provision for unascertained liabilities. The aforesaid provision, it would be appreciated, is applicable only to unascertained liabilities and not where provision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

1). The question now is no longer res integra having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625. The Apex Court categorically held that section 22 of the Act does not require registration of sale deed. The meaning of the word 'owner' in the context of section

RADIALS INTERNATIONAL vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1)(c) were to be initiated and third, that the claim for rebate under Section 88E, as an alternative, was to fail since no evidence of the Securities Transaction Tax paid was furnished. It was reasoned that the purpose of a portfolio manager was to optimize returns of the investor. Since the motive of the transactions was the earning