MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

va) there is specific exclusion of capital gains from the scope of tax liability under the head ‘business’ or ‘profession’. The terms of the contract between the assesses / shareholders and the buyers of the share had not been property appreciated or understood by the AO in both cases who appear to have been directed by the revenue officers above them

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

36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of Finance Act 2021, Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 and the specific amendments which will take effect from 01.04.2021, we hereby hold that no disallowance is called for belated payment of the employee’s contribution to the respective ESI and EPF fund

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

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

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

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 Gains’. Relief 220(7): 4. The lower authorities have erred and were not justified in refusing the benefit of section 220(7) of the Act on the interest of Rs 8,21,49,466/- included in the total income, but which is prohibited for remittance by virtue of UN embargo, which was made along with the return as well

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.648/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Dcit Adidas India Marketing P. Ltd. Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Circle 1(1), Vs. Room No.153A, Sector-B, Pocket No.7, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Plot No.11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. South West Delhi, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca5313P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

va) amounting to Rs.35,59,808/- and; c) Disallowance u/s 43B amounting to Rs.1,25,98,242/-. These adjustments were made by the CPC without issuing any notice to the assessee or intimating the assessee of proposed adjustments before making any adjustments in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 5. Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions

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)

va) of the act by the Finance act, 2002 with effect from 1/4/ 2003. Therefore, prior to that same was not chargeable to tax. It was further stated that the honourable Supreme Court in case of Guffic Chem P Ltd 332 ITR 602 held that noncompeting consideration received by the assessee is chargeable to tax only with effect from

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

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)

36 of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (1), in clause (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

DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

va) of Rs. the decision of Hon’ble to 273 30,61,331/- on account Supreme Court in the case of of late deposit but PCIT vs. Rajasthan State The provision of Sec deposited before the due Beverages Corp Ltd 84 43B is also amended date of filing. Taxmann.com 185 dismissing with affect from SLR and confirming the 01/04/2004 deleting

DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

va) of Rs. the decision of Hon’ble to 273 30,61,331/- on account Supreme Court in the case of of late deposit but PCIT vs. Rajasthan State The provision of Sec deposited before the due Beverages Corp Ltd 84 43B is also amended date of filing. Taxmann.com 185 dismissing with affect from SLR and confirming the 01/04/2004 deleting

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)

36(1)(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

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)

Section- 36(1)(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

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)

Section- 36(1)(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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S G4S IT SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2010-11

va) read with Section 2(24)(x) provide for allowing the claim of payment of employees' contribution to ESI and P.F., only if made within the due date as per those statutes. However, even in case of the same, it was held that by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. and others

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