M/S PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Capital Territory of Delhi. The assessee has been operating two separate undertakings termed as project GT-1 at Raj Ghat and another undertaking engaged in the business of generation and distribution of power located at Bawana. It is claimed by the assessee that commercial operations in respect of GT-1 Raj Ghat commenced in July, 2002 and as such

M/S. A K CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6859/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 A. K. Capital Markets Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, 609, 6Th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca9960D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sarabhjit Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2015 Order

80B (5), thus, cannot guide or predicate the applicability of section 73, falling under Chapter VI. The matter could be looked upon from another angle as well. The whole import of section 73, as afore-noted, is whether income from purchase and sale of shares is to be regarded as speculative or non-speculative business income; different consequences attending

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

capital expenditure or a personal expense of the assessee but being otherwise laid out or expended fully and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession is allowed to be deducted in computing income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession.” The other provisions mentioned in Chapter IV and provisions of Chapter V not being relevant

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

80B (5) which defines “gross total income” as the total income computed in ITA Nos.347/2011 & 2067/2010 Page 17 of 32 accordance with the provisions of the Act before making any deduction under Chapter VIA. The expression “total income” is defined in Section 2 (45) of the Act to mean the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

80B (5) which defines “gross total income” as the total income computed in ITA Nos.347/2011 & 2067/2010 Page 17 of 32 accordance with the provisions of the Act before making any deduction under Chapter VIA. The expression “total income” is defined in Section 2 (45) of the Act to mean the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed

JAI BHIKSHU CREDIT AND HOLDING LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishijai Bhikshu Credit & Holding Vs. Dcit, Ltd, F-591, Sarita Vihar, Circle-13(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacj0774F (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant's case falls in the excluded category under Explanation to section 73. As per the Explanation to section 73, substituted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1-4-1988, which was applicable for the assessment year under appeal, the investment companies were not as such excluded

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -II vs. KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

capital gains). Under section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set-off against income under

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Capital Gain 64,46,187 Income from Other Sources 1,68,98,037 50,90,742 Less : Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 14,22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which are to be included in the assessee‟s total

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which are to be included in the assessee‟s total

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

capital Exp. # 43,698,289 Income from Business/ Profession 197,479,545 Gross Total Income 1,875,866,703 Less: Deduction u/s 801Α 1,875,866,703 Total Income 5.1 The assessee has explained that it has claimed deduction under section 80-IA of the Act on the basis of the certificate issued by the Auditor in form No. 10CCB

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

capital expenditure and the licence fee on revenue sharing basis after 01.08.1999 should be treated as revenue in nature.” 35. On finding parity on the facts of the case under consideration we direct accordingly. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed. 36. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 relate to the determination of deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

capital expenditure and the licence fee on revenue sharing basis after 01.08.1999 should be treated as revenue in nature.” 35. On finding parity on the facts of the case under consideration we direct accordingly. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed. 36. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 relate to the determination of deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

capital expenditure and the licence fee on revenue sharing basis after 01.08.1999 should be treated as revenue in nature.” 35. On finding parity on the facts of the case under consideration we direct accordingly. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed. 36. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 relate to the determination of deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect

M/S. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

capital expenditure and the licence fee on revenue sharing basis after 01.08.1999 should be treated as revenue in nature.” 35. On finding parity on the facts of the case under consideration we direct accordingly. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed. 36. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 relate to the determination of deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect

M/S. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

capital expenditure and the licence fee on revenue sharing basis after 01.08.1999 should be treated as revenue in nature.” 35. On finding parity on the facts of the case under consideration we direct accordingly. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed. 36. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 relate to the determination of deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect

M/S R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2011-12]

gains of business or profession" begins thereafter. This proposition is in line with the form of return. Allowing deduction at the earliest stage of business income computation almost blurs the difference between the commercial profits and tax profits. 17. The substituted section 10A continues to remain in Chapter III. It is titled as "Incomes which do not form part

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80B(5) to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under this Chapter. As per the definition the gross total income, the other provisions of the Act will have to be first given effect to. There is no reason why reference to the provisions of the Act should not include