JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO- OPERATION AGENCY,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

Sections 115-O and 115-R whereas, the conditions laid down u/s 115-O to avail the exemption u/s 10(34), is to be complied with at the level of venture capital undertaking and not at the stage when the investor, the assessee in this case, received the dividend income from VCF. So, the assessee is entitled for exemption

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

244A of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT perused the assessment record and found that the assessee has claimed capital loss of Rs.5,76,814/- on one of the properties sold in the computation of income. Further, The market value of such property was Rs. 68,50,000 - whereas the property was sold at Rs. 24,00,000/-which

JAGDISH CHANDRA MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt.Year: 2008-09

capital gain tax has been I.T.A. No. 5651/D/2013 Assessment year 2008-09 calculated at the rate of 30% whereas it should be at 20% as per section 112 of the Act 7. We have perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions made by both the parties. It is clear from the above cited judgements that the assessee

M/S WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

capital gain. 7. That further the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,63,00,000/- made by the learned AO as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, failing to appreciate that the amount was received by the appellant in the course of business for purchase of property and was not an advance

JASJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

capital gains was deducted by M/s. Koutons Group but not deposited with the state exchequer, is entitled to credit of TDS?” 7. It is the statutory principle of law that under section 195 of the Act, any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, as in the present case, shall at the time of credit of such income

JASJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

capital gains was deducted by M/s. Koutons Group but not deposited with the state exchequer, is entitled to credit of TDS?” 7. It is the statutory principle of law that under section 195 of the Act, any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, as in the present case, shall at the time of credit of such income

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

capital loan to vendors. Re: Non-allowance of depreciation on iease-hold rights in land 21. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 19,11,47,917 on „leasehold rights‟ in land under section 32(l)(ii) of the Act claimed by the appellant in accordance with the directions

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 244A of the Act from the Government treasury during the year under consideration. 4. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expense to the extent of Rs.60,51,351 while computing long term capital gain

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 244A of the Act from the Government treasury during the year under consideration. 4. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expense to the extent of Rs.60,51,351 while computing long term capital gain

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 244A of the Act from the Government treasury during the year under consideration. 4. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expense to the extent of Rs.60,51,351 while computing long term capital gain

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 244A of the Act from the Government treasury during the year under consideration. 4. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expense to the extent of Rs.60,51,351 while computing long term capital gain

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 244A of the Act from the Government treasury during the year under consideration. 4. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expense to the extent of Rs.60,51,351 while computing long term capital gain

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 244A of the Act from the Government treasury during the year under consideration. 4. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expense to the extent of Rs.60,51,351 while computing long term capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

capital gain has been assessed in the hands of some of the persons where lands were acquired, such assessment would become patently erroneous, as the basis itself has ceased to exist. Such assessment would, therefore, amount to mistake, which, in our opinion, can be rectified. Similarly, any income assessed may become non-taxable by virtue of retrospective amendment and consequently

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

capital gain has been assessed in the hands of some of the persons where lands were acquired, such assessment would become patently erroneous, as the basis itself has ceased to exist. Such assessment would, therefore, amount to mistake, which, in our opinion, can be rectified. Similarly, any income assessed may become non-taxable by virtue of retrospective amendment and consequently

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

capital gain has been assessed in the hands of some of the persons where lands were acquired, such assessment would become patently erroneous, as the basis itself has ceased to exist. Such assessment would, therefore, amount to mistake, which, in our opinion, can be rectified. Similarly, any income assessed may become non-taxable by virtue of retrospective amendment and consequently

M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

capital gain has been assessed in the hands of some of the persons where lands were acquired, such assessment would become patently erroneous, as the basis itself has ceased to exist. Such assessment would, therefore, amount to mistake, which, in our opinion, can be rectified. Similarly, any income assessed may become non-taxable by virtue of retrospective amendment and consequently

SBI CARDS PAYMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed in terms of our observations and directions contained in

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sbi Cards Payment Acit Services Pvt. Ltd. Circle-7(1), 401,402, 4Th Floor, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Aggarwal Millenium New Delhi Vs. Tower, E 1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur New Delhi Pan : Aaecs5981K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri K. Tewari, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Tushar Jarwal, Rahul Sateeja, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018

244A of the Act in the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act.” 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ground nos. 1.1 to 1.4 were not being pressed by the assessee as the provision made for reward point redemption has already been allowed by the department on actual basis in the subsequent years