CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Capital gains” under section 74(1) and no tax holiday deficiency under section 80J(3) in respect of any of the assessment years comprised in the tax holiday period will, in so far as such loss or deficiency relates to the business of industrial undertaking, be carried forward or set off in computing the income of the assessment year immediately

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Capital gains” under section 74(1) and no tax holiday deficiency under section 80J(3) in respect of any of the assessment years comprised in the tax holiday period will, in so far as such loss or deficiency relates to the business of industrial undertaking, be carried forward or set off in computing the income of the assessment year immediately

NAWAL KISHORE,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

928 merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture surmises and modus operandi without correlating the same in the Context of the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Learned AO has made subject addition without bringing incriminating material on record solely on hearsay borrowed satisfaction of investigating wing on a hypotheses of modus operandi

SATISH KISHORE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 47(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

928 merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture surmises and modus operandi without correlating the same in the Context of the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Learned AO has made subject addition without bringing incriminating material on record solely on hearsay borrowed satisfaction of investigating wing on a hypotheses of modus operandi

NEW DELHI AUTO FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 18(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

capital gains" under the provisions of section 45(5).  The issue whether gains of acquisition of agricultural land were taxable or not has not been discussed by lower authorities. 5. Whether the land was agriculture land or not? 5.1 On perusal of the assessment order dated 27.03.2002, it is seen that the land in question comprised of the following Khasra

L&T SUCG JV CC27,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-62, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

gain on translation/ conversion of foreign currency liability in respect of purchase of capital asset was capital receipt not subject to tax. The appellant respectfully prays that the directions of the CIT (A) to the AO be quashed and AO be directed to delete the addition of Rs.4,15,68,750/-. GROUND -10 Disallowance of Design expenses

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. L&T SUCG JV CC27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

gain on translation/ conversion of foreign currency liability in respect of purchase of capital asset was capital receipt not subject to tax. The appellant respectfully prays that the directions of the CIT (A) to the AO be quashed and AO be directed to delete the addition of Rs.4,15,68,750/-. GROUND -10 Disallowance of Design expenses

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 80-IAB states that profit and gains derived from business of developing SEZ. Thus, the deduction is only available once the SEZ is developed and it cannot be allowed before the stage of development of SEZ. b. Sale of buildings to the co-developer is neither an activity of development of SEZ nor one of the authorized operations

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 80-IAB states that profit and gains derived from business of developing SEZ. Thus, the deduction is only available once the SEZ is developed and it cannot be allowed before the stage of development of SEZ. b. Sale of buildings to the co-developer is neither an activity of development of SEZ nor one of the authorized operations

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Gain a loss loss No. 928 of PB) during the (Pg. No. 88 of (Pg. No. 226 of year PB) PB) Long term 4,09,10,680/-(Pg. 4,09,10,680/-(Pg. Nil capital loss No. 88 of PB) No. 226 of PB) (Pg. No. 928 of Carried forward for PB) current year The ld. AR fairly submitted even

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NOIDA

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2009-10

capital gain at Rs. 1,43,10,928/- and completed the assessment ex-parte under section 144 read with section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IMPULSE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

928/- was disallowed. The Assessing Officer did not examine this plea in nor could find any fault in the claim of the assessee having regards to its account. The interpretation of the AO regarding the applicability of the provisions of Rule 8D is certainly incorrect and not in accordance with the law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IMPULSE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

928/- was disallowed. The Assessing Officer did not examine this plea in nor could find any fault in the claim of the assessee having regards to its account. The interpretation of the AO regarding the applicability of the provisions of Rule 8D is certainly incorrect and not in accordance with the law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IMPULSE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

928/- was disallowed. The Assessing Officer did not examine this plea in nor could find any fault in the claim of the assessee having regards to its account. The interpretation of the AO regarding the applicability of the provisions of Rule 8D is certainly incorrect and not in accordance with the law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S. IMPULSE OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

928/- was disallowed. The Assessing Officer did not examine this plea in nor could find any fault in the claim of the assessee having regards to its account. The interpretation of the AO regarding the applicability of the provisions of Rule 8D is certainly incorrect and not in accordance with the law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

BIMLA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6991/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Bimla Devi, Vs Acit, 2/6, East Patel Nagar, Circle-50(1), New Delhi-110008 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcpd3481D Assessee By : Sh. Y. P. Rawla, Ca Revenue By : Sh. V. K. Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2021

928/- e. General Expenses Rs.42,802/- 4. Further, the assessee filed revised computation of income during the assessment proceedings declaring a loss of Rs.2,56,21,670/- thus increasing the loss by Rs.90,24,572/- which the Assessing Officer has rejected holding that the revised computation was not supported by the revised return in accordance with Section

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

gains amounting to INR 5,64,90,133/-; (iii) Failure to grant tax credit of INR 62,68,561/- on account of Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS'), Tax Collected at Source ('TCS') and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') credit (iv) Erroneous application of surcharge at 12% vis-à-vis surcharge rate of 10% (as provided under section 115BAA

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains