AVANTHA REALTY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2004-05

capital gains. 4.1 The Assessee has claimed that the loan was taken in F.Y. 2001-02 and the same has been used for making investments and the interest on the loan has already been allowed by the Assessing Officer in the two preceding assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and therefore, by principle of res judicata, the Assessee

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

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishimotorola India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit, Motorola Excellence Centre, Gurgaon Circle, 415/2, Sector-14, Mg Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Motorola India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon Circle, Motorola Excellence Centre, Gurgaon 415/2, Sector-14, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Motorola Solutions India (P) Ltd, Vs. Acit, 415/2, Motorola Excellence Gurgaon Circle, Centre, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Motorola Solutions India (P) Gurgaon Circle, Ltd, Gurgaon 415/2, Motorola Excellence Centre, Mg Road, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv Shri Suvinay K. Dash, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2018

capital expenditure. He is also further directed to withdraw the allowance of the depreciation at the rate of 60% thereon. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 24. Similar is the ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004 – 05 and the disallowance of Rs. 4200977/- on account of software

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SANJAY SAWHNEY, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2009-10] The Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Sanjay Sawhney Ward – 34(3) C – 83, Ashok Vihar New Delhi Phase – 1, Delhi

Capital Gains. The assessee challenged the assessment before the first appellate authority and alongwith other grounds of appeal, raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was vehemently contended that the assessment for the concerned Assessment Year should have been completed u/s 153C

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

DCIT CIRCLE 12 (1) vs. G.E. CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

80M is available in the case of Punjab State Industrial Corp. Ltd. Vs DCIT 102 ITD 1 (Chd.)(SB). I agree with the views of the appellant that since the dividend received during the year under appeal related to investment of A. Y. 94-95 to 97-98, the AO was not right in deciphering the source of all investments

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA vs. ADDL CIT RANGE 2,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

80M is available in the case of Punjab State Industrial Corp. Ltd. Vs DCIT 102 ITD 1 (Chd.)(SB). I agree with the views of the appellant that since the dividend received during the year under appeal related to investment of A. Y. 94-95 to 97-98, the AO was not right in deciphering the source of all investments

ACIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI, C.R. BUILDING, ITO NEW DELHI vs. GYAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , PUNJABI BHAWAN, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains have been earned on shares sold from this portfolio which is managed by the PMS provider M/s Guardian Advisors. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the A.O that the payment of Rs 44.23 lakhs made on account of Portfolio management charges is directly related to the 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.94, 93 & 92/Del/2024 & 109 & 176/Del/2024 exempted

GYAN ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains have been earned on shares sold from this portfolio which is managed by the PMS provider M/s Guardian Advisors. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the A.O that the payment of Rs 44.23 lakhs made on account of Portfolio management charges is directly related to the 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.94, 93 & 92/Del/2024 & 109 & 176/Del/2024 exempted

ACIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI, C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. GYAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains have been earned on shares sold from this portfolio which is managed by the PMS provider M/s Guardian Advisors. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the A.O that the payment of Rs 44.23 lakhs made on account of Portfolio management charges is directly related to the 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.94, 93 & 92/Del/2024 & 109 & 176/Del/2024 exempted

GYAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains have been earned on shares sold from this portfolio which is managed by the PMS provider M/s Guardian Advisors. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the A.O that the payment of Rs 44.23 lakhs made on account of Portfolio management charges is directly related to the 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.94, 93 & 92/Del/2024 & 109 & 176/Del/2024 exempted

GYAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains have been earned on shares sold from this portfolio which is managed by the PMS provider M/s Guardian Advisors. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the A.O that the payment of Rs 44.23 lakhs made on account of Portfolio management charges is directly related to the 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.94, 93 & 92/Del/2024 & 109 & 176/Del/2024 exempted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

80M of the IT Act and section 14A of the IT Act does not deal with this issue. e. No actual expenditure was incurred by the Appellant Assessee to earn the dividend income. No actual expenditure was incurred on its collection. Also, no follow-up was made for the same. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- as made

M/S. IFCI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

80M of the IT Act and section 14A of the IT Act does not deal with this issue. e. No actual expenditure was incurred by the Appellant Assessee to earn the dividend income. No actual expenditure was incurred on its collection. Also, no follow-up was made for the same. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- as made

IFCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

80M of the IT Act and section 14A of the IT Act does not deal with this issue. e. No actual expenditure was incurred by the Appellant Assessee to earn the dividend income. No actual expenditure was incurred on its collection. Also, no follow-up was made for the same. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- as made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

80M of the IT Act and section 14A of the IT Act does not deal with this issue. e. No actual expenditure was incurred by the Appellant Assessee to earn the dividend income. No actual expenditure was incurred on its collection. Also, no follow-up was made for the same. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- as made

IFCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

80M of the IT Act and section 14A of the IT Act does not deal with this issue. e. No actual expenditure was incurred by the Appellant Assessee to earn the dividend income. No actual expenditure was incurred on its collection. Also, no follow-up was made for the same. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- as made