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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V N vs. DAMANJIT SINGH

gains of business or profession” have to be first ‘computed’. This necessarily takes us to Sections 28 to 44 of the Act. The various stages in such computation, including Section 37, perforce envisage accounting for the expenditure incurred by an assessee for earning the income. The assessees further draw support from Circular No.621 dated 19.12.1991 and paragraph 30.11 thereof which

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

80I-A claimed\nby the appellant as indicated in the preceding discussion.\"\n16. The Tribunal, concurred with the aforesaid findings recorded\nby the CIT (A), by taking support of the decision of a Co-ordinate\nBench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd. v. CIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 268. As regards section 80IA

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

80I-A claimed\nby the appellant as indicated in the preceding discussion.\"\n\n16. The Tribunal, concurred with the aforesaid findings recorded\nby the CIT (A), by taking support of the decision of a Co-ordinate\nBench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd. v. CIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 268. As regards section

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

80I-A claimed\nby the appellant as indicated in the preceding discussion.\n16. The Tribunal, concurred with the aforesaid findings recorded\nby the CIT (A), by taking support of the decision of a Co-ordinate\nBench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd. v. CIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 268. As regards section 80IA

SIDWAL REFRIGERATION IND. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1)

gains derived from such business for the first five assessment years commencing at the time during the periods as specified in Sub-section (2) and the dispute is as to which are the first five assessment years. These five years are to commence at any time during the periods as specified in Sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) mentions “beginning

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

capital in nature and disallowance u/s 43B of the Act (Rs.2,84,85,605/-) on account of unpaid gratuity of Rs.95,74,986/- compensated advances of Rs.76,56,292/- and Bonus of Rs.1,12,54,327/- were also made. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.168,70,12,470/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated

LOKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-45(5), DELHI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

capital in nature and disallowance u/s 43B of the Act (Rs.2,84,85,605/-) on account of unpaid gratuity of Rs.95,74,986/- compensated advances of Rs.76,56,292/- and Bonus of Rs.1,12,54,327/- were also made. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.168,70,12,470/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7 , NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

capital in nature and\ndisallowance u/s 43B of the Act (Rs.2,84,85,605/-) on account\nof unpaid gratuity of Rs.95,74,986/- compensated advances of\nRs.76,56,292/- and Bonus of Rs.1,12,54,327/- were also made.\nThe total income of the assessee was assessed at\nRs.168,70,12,470/-\n4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI

capital in nature and\ndisallowance u/s 43B of the Act (Rs.2,84,85,605/-) on account\nof unpaid gratuity of Rs.95,74,986/- compensated advances of\nRs.76,56,292/- and Bonus of Rs.1,12,54,327/- were also made.\nThe total income of the assessee was assessed at\nRs.168,70,12,470/-\n4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated