CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

capital gains and income from other sources, the total is arrived at and it is from this total that the losses of the current year and the brought forward losses from the past years are to be set off. The resultant figure gives the gross total income of the assessee from which deductions under Chapter VIA are to be made

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

capital gains and income from other sources, the total is arrived at and it is from this total that the losses of the current year and the brought forward losses from the past years are to be set off. The resultant figure gives the gross total income of the assessee from which deductions under Chapter VIA are to be made

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

capitalization unit-wise. This the assessee has given vide its letter dated 17.03.1999. The depreciation chart has been made site- wise and not unit-wise by the assessee. There is no way in which one can relate the machinery, given vide the said letter. In fact, the whole computation of deduction u/s 80HH, 80IA and 80I is purely a hypothetical

GAIL (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT-LTU DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

capitalization unit-wise. This the assessee has given vide its letter dated 17.03.1999. The depreciation chart has been made site- wise and not unit-wise by the assessee. There is no way in which one can relate the machinery, given vide the said letter. In fact, the whole computation of deduction u/s 80HH, 80IA and 80I is purely a hypothetical

M/S. SGS TEKNIKS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

gains computed under the Act whereas in section 80IC etc. the admissible amount is 100% thereof. Furthermore section 80I was introduced by Finance Act, 1980 w.e.f. 01.04.1981 whereas 80IC was brought into the statute by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.04.2004 i.e. it is a much later development. In this case the matter was remanded

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SGS TEKNIKS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

gains computed under the Act whereas in section 80IC etc. the admissible amount is 100% thereof. Furthermore section 80I was introduced by Finance Act, 1980 w.e.f. 01.04.1981 whereas 80IC was brought into the statute by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.04.2004 i.e. it is a much later development. In this case the matter was remanded

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

gain. In Response ld DRP held that as there was no time left it was not possible and therefore they rejected the objection of the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs. 2 57,31,000. 16. Consequently the learned AO passed assessment order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C of The Income Tax Act dated 31/10/2018 determining

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain from business in terms of sub- section (8) to Section 80IA. Learned counsel for respondent-assessee submits that Assessing Officer is competent to decide said question as per law and hands and power of Assessing Officer have not been curtailed and present order does not give any specific or clear finding/direction. We take statement made by learned counsel respondent

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain from business in terms of sub- section (8) to Section 80IA. Learned counsel for respondent-assessee submits that Assessing Officer is competent to decide said question as per law and hands and power of Assessing Officer have not been curtailed and present order does not give any specific or clear finding/direction. We take statement made by learned counsel respondent

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain from business in terms of sub- section (8) to Section 80IA. Learned counsel for respondent-assessee submits that Assessing Officer is competent to decide said question as per law and hands and power of Assessing Officer have not been curtailed and present order does not give any specific or clear finding/direction. We take statement made by learned counsel respondent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL-III vs. UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD

Appeal is dismissed

80I were admissible on gross income. Following the order of the ITAT we dismiss the revenue’s ground.” 5. The relevant provisions are as follows:- “Section 80-HH(1) – Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking, or the business of a hotel, to which this section applies, there shall

COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX DEL vs. UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

80I were admissible on gross income. Following the order of the ITAT we dismiss the revenue’s ground.” 5. The relevant provisions are as follows:- “Section 80-HH(1) – Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking, or the business of a hotel, to which this section applies, there shall

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Capital Gains(hereinafter referred as ‘LTCG’) on which exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act was claimed. The AO further noted that during investigations, it was found that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries received in the form of LTCG through 11 an entry operator, who was involved in manipulation of prices of various scrips

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Capital Gains(hereinafter referred as ‘LTCG’) on which exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act was claimed. The AO further noted that during investigations, it was found that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries received in the form of LTCG through 11 an entry operator, who was involved in manipulation of prices of various scrips

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

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

ACIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. WINDLASS STEEL CRAFT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5506/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Windlass Steel Craft, Circle-1, 11-A, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafw0958M Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

80I or section 80-IA or section 80- IB will be allowed. Section does not spell out any condition for Section 80IC of the Act. 1.5 Assessee is claiming exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act under Chapter-III as the assessee firm is a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking which no where talks about the earnings in Indian rupee

CONTROLA & SWITCHGEAR CO LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly we are not inclined to admit the appeal. The same is dismissed

Capital Management Pvt. Ltd., 119 TTJ 289, in which it was held that section 14A is applicable in respect of direct and indirect expenses incurred for earning any income, which is not included in the total income. The onus of proving that no such expenditure has been incurred is on the assessee. The retroactive operation of Rule 8D was also