AJAY GULIYA

va). 2012:DHC:4335-DB ITA 423 of 2012 Page 5 of 10 6.5 This decision was a matter of writ petition before Hon’ble Madras High Court. The questions before the Hon’ble Court were as under:- "(i) Whether the gains arising from the transfer of 15,000 equity shares in M/s Vision Health Source India (P) Ltd. covered

NALINI MAHAJAN,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

gains of business or profession..... These amendments will take effect from Ist April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent years" 19. In view of the above, it is submitted that, since non-compete fee relating to profession was made taxable only w.e.f. A. Y.2017-18, non-compete fee in relation to profession

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to a lump sum amount of Rs.20,00,000/- without appreciating that the disallowance is to be computed in accordance with the only method prescribed under rule 8D of the Income

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to a lump sum amount of Rs.20,00,000/- without appreciating that the disallowance is to be computed in accordance with the only method prescribed under rule 8D of the Income

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

va) r.w.s. 1,08,85,080/- 2(24)(x), as discussed in para 2.5.4 Less Disallowance of deduction claimed NIL u/s. 80IA as discussed in para 2.5.5 Total assessed income Rs. 49,81,91,872/- 4.3 The claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) was denied and taken as ‘NIL’. Accordingly, the final assessment was completed

STEEL CITY BEVERAGES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh.M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Steel City Beverages Vs Ito Limited, C/O Advocate Ward- 24 (1) Kanika Jain D-80, Lgf New Delhi Panchsheel New Delhi - 1110017 Pan No.Aaccs3967M (Appellant) (Respondent)

va), the Explanation shall be numbered as Explanation 1 thereof and after Explanation 1 as so numbered, the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:- Explanation 2.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 438 shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the Purposes of determining

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

23-10-2003 {fact relevant to AY 2004-05} vide letter No. F2(26)/02/NL/WZ/PT DDA took physical possession of the land. The said surrender was also discussed in the order dated 15-05-2004 passed by the district Judge, Delhi wherein the fact am of surrender of land and actual physical possession by DDA was accepted. It is submitted

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

23-10-2003 {fact relevant to AY 2004-05} vide letter No. F2(26)/02/NL/WZ/PT DDA took physical possession of the land. The said surrender was also discussed in the order dated 15-05-2004 passed by the district Judge, Delhi wherein the fact am of surrender of land and actual physical possession by DDA was accepted. It is submitted

RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

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

va)/(iv) of the Act, as against ‘capital gain’ (long term- Rs.10,60,83,585 and short term- Rs.38,12,53,581) offered by the appellant. 5.1 That the assessing officer/ DRP erred on facts and in law in alleging that the appellant did not hold interest in ARLICL as 4 SA No. 77/Del/2021 Religare Enterprises Ltd. shareholders’ investment

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

capital gains on the land sold taking the cost of acquisition at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have erroneously made/upheld the addition on account of LTCG. Accordingly, he prayed that the said ground of appeal be allowed and the addition made on account of LTCG be deleted

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4 , NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA- COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

capital gains on the land sold taking the cost of acquisition at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have erroneously made/upheld the addition on account of LTCG. Accordingly, he prayed that the said ground of appeal be allowed and the addition made on account of LTCG be deleted