HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

55,218\n569,99,99,925\nCredit Suise (Singapore) Ltd.\n25,36,998\n132,00,00,059\n03.10.2019\n&\n06.12.2019\nThe assessee filed following details/documents before AO:\n(a) Details of amounts received along with details of non-\nresident share applicants;\n(b) List of Allottees\n(c) Valuation Report as per Rule 11UA substantiating fair\nvaluation of issuance

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\ninterest income to the tune of US $ 2,69,309 and profit on redemption of\npreference shares to the tune of US $ 2,07,459). There is no other income\nreported for these two years for the year ended 31.12.2019 and 31.12.2018.\nPerusal of the expenditure side reveals that majority

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

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

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

capital, transportation, level of the market, i.e. retail or wholesale and so forth. The Rules and the analytical steps. 71. Sub-Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

55 of PB-IV). iv) CIT vs Suren International P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 357 ITR 24 (Pages 56 to 67 of PB-IV). v) PCIT vs DSC Ltd. (Delhi HC) in ITA No. 546/2019 (Pages 108 to 119 of PB - IV). Proposition 3: Reopening not permissible on wrong premise i.e. wrong noting of facts in reasons not permissible

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital leading to profits of business, which profits may be either enjoyed- or put back into the business to acquire more properties for further profitable exploitation." 7. In Sultan Bros (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[1964] 51 ITR 353 the Supreme Court held that: "It seems to us that the inseparability referred to in sub-section (4) is an inseparability arising

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gains (or business income) on account of revaluation of property held by the assessee company. The learned Counsel submitted that where the assessee company was not engaged in any transfer of property, no income can be deemed in the hands of the assessee company. The learned Counsel pointed out that invocation of section 68 of the Act in the facts

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)

Capital Loss. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. Again notice u/s 142(10 of the Act were issued on the various date but no response was filed by the assessee. A show cause notice dated 21-04-2021 was issued. In the adjusting response of the show cause notice the assessee has filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

2) of section 43-A that the abovementioned provisions for adjustment to the original actual cost of imported capital assets due to an increase or reduction in the assessee's liability for payment of the installments of the cost of the asset or for repayment of the foreign loan against which the asset has been acquired, will not be applicable

ITA 1287/2011 vs. EAGLE THEATRES

2. The respondent-assessee sold a cinema hall in Mumbai in the period relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 for Rs.27,70,00,000/-. In the sale deed it was mentioned that Rs.15,00,000/- was attributable to furniture, fixture, equipment and AC plant. This figure was not disputed or interfered with by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer

CIT vs. EAGLE THEATRES

2. The respondent-assessee sold a cinema hall in Mumbai in the period relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 for Rs.27,70,00,000/-. In the sale deed it was mentioned that Rs.15,00,000/- was attributable to furniture, fixture, equipment and AC plant. This figure was not disputed or interfered with by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer

SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

55 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune addition of Rs.1,66,70,881 which was made by the Assessing Officer on rejecting the accounting system on percentage completion method followed by the assessee. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. Hence, the present

SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

55 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune addition of Rs.1,66,70,881 which was made by the Assessing Officer on rejecting the accounting system on percentage completion method followed by the assessee. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. Hence, the present

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD., PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

55 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune addition of Rs.1,66,70,881 which was made by the Assessing Officer on rejecting the accounting system on percentage completion method followed by the assessee. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. Hence, the present

UPAID SYSTEMS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

55,622/-, including royalty income of Rs.3,16,68,603/-. 4.2 In the meanwhile, to determine taxability of the compensation received from Satyam, the assessee moved an application before Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). Before the AAR, the assessee pleaded that the compensation received from Satyam, being of capital nature, is not taxable in India. While pronouncing its ruling

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

55,17,42,580/-, despite computing the total income of the Appellant at NIL, consequently, canvassing certain mistakes apparent from the record. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (“AMP”) Expenses 5. That the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”)/ Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-31 (“AO”)/ Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)/ NFAC have erred in computing