SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

va) of section 28; (xiia) the fair market value of inventory referred to in clause (via) of section 28; ITA Nos. 7256 & 241/Del/2019 14 Shiv Kumar Jatia (xiii) any sum referred to in clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xiv) any sum referred to in clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section

OC SWEATERS LLP,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1711/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Oc Sweaters Llp, Dcit Cpc F-8, Okhla South East Delhi, Vs. Bangalore. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaefo8261B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Capital account transactions. Section 43A applies when following conditions are fulfilled: - i) The asset must be acquired from outside India (Same is applied here). ii) The asset must be acquired for the purpose of Business and Profession. It is submitted that in such cases, the amount of exchange gain/loss arisen on such assets shall be added/deducted to the actual cost

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

capital gain is being worked out as under: Compensation received by the assessee company Rs.55,09,63,271/- ITA No.4710-Del-2010 Against the assets Less: w.d.v. of block of assets Rs. 1,23,60,483/- Rs.53,86,02,788/- 23. The assessee company had originally shown to have sold 50 lakh shares of face value 10 each of its subsidiary company

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain and disallowance deleted by the ld CIT A. 11. The revenue is challenging the order of the learned commissioner of income tax appeals, which deleted the addition of ₹ 1.75 crores on account of trademark, ₹ 25 lakhs on account of sale of know-how, of ₹ 75 lakhs on account of product information and deletion of the disallowance of ₹ 1.85 lakhs

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METRO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

capital limits vary in direct proportion to the net current assets. Similarly term loans granted are tied up for specific purposes and the Banker insists on bills etc. to monitor utilization. The presumption in such cases should be that the Banker have monitored the disbursements and that the loans granted by the banker have been utilized only for the purpose

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, 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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. YUM RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

capital gain thereon. 8. As per the statement of the Accused, the conservative estimate of his undisclosed commission income is @ 2%; after considering all expenses out of the commission, he had earned an income of Rs.14 crores (2% of Rs.700 crores), Rs.2.08 crores during FY 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16. This amount of commission did not form part

M/S. LAIRY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 153C. (iii) Judgment neither shows formulation of questions nor shows as to what all questions of law were raised by the Revenue. (iv) It does not considers its own judgment in SSP Aviation Ltd which was directly on section 153C. (v) It holds something not even indicated in the law & hence goes against the plain words

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