SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C of the Income Tax Act thereby proposing to make following variation to the return income of the assessee:- Particulars Amount (in Rs.) as Amount (in Rs.) as per revised return assessed of income A Business Income Income from -1,27,500 1,27,500 6 various projects as per return of income Add: Income from

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, value of an assets which is to be estimated u/s 7 of the Wealth Tax Act; (f) That fair market value has not been defined under the Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define u/s 2

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, value of an assets which is to be estimated u/s 7 of the Wealth Tax Act; (f) That fair market value has not been defined under the Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define u/s 2

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, value of an assets which is to be estimated u/s 7 of the Wealth Tax Act; (f) That fair market value has not been defined under the Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define u/s 2

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, value of an assets which is to be estimated u/s 7 of the Wealth Tax Act; (f) That fair market value has not been defined under the Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define u/s 2

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

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

AC 380 at p.399) are also apposite: "Apart from the express terms of section 33, sub-section 1, a similar conclusion might be founded on the well known common law rules as to the effect of the sending of a cheque in payment of a debt, and in the fact that though the payment is subject to the condition subsequent

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

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

55. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee deleting the above disallowance for the earlier assessment year. The learned departmental representative could not point out that any of such expenditure are incurred which are disallowable

SIEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

capital loss. Refer 72 and 73 of the paper book. 18. We also observed from the order of Ld CIT(A) that he has looked at the transactions differently. He observed that the assessee has transferred assets and liability at the same cost, that means the assets were transferred at zero, therefore, there is no loss or gain

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

capital loss. Refer 72 and 73 of the paper book. 18. We also observed from the order of Ld CIT(A) that he has looked at the transactions differently. He observed that the assessee has transferred assets and liability at the same cost, that means the assets were transferred at zero, therefore, there is no loss or gain

SIEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

capital loss. Refer 72 and 73 of the paper book. 18. We also observed from the order of Ld CIT(A) that he has looked at the transactions differently. He observed that the assessee has transferred assets and liability at the same cost, that means the assets were transferred at zero, therefore, there is no loss or gain

HAREON SOLAR SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

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

55,741( for the year ended 31.12.2018, the income constituted interest income to the tune of US $ 2,69,309 and profit on redemption of preference shares to the tune of US $ 2,07,459). There is no other income reported for these two years for the year ended 31.12.2019 and 31.12.2018. Perusal of the expenditure side reveals that majority

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains derived from immovable property is income and therefore Article VI would be attracted.‖ 21. Mr. Chawla contended that when faced with a situation where the meaning of a term is not defined under a tax treaty, Courts would have to necessarily follow the ambulatory approach, as enunciated, as opposed to a static approach. Mr. Chawla submitted that the private

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains derived from immovable property is income and therefore Article VI would be attracted.‖ 21. Mr. Chawla contended that when faced with a situation where the meaning of a term is not defined under a tax treaty, Courts would have to necessarily follow the ambulatory approach, as enunciated, as opposed to a static approach. Mr. Chawla submitted that the private