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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked. 3. That learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case in confirming the net disallowance of Rs. 26,05,808/- (i.e. after allowing depreciation @ 15% on gross disallowance of Rs. 28,17,090/- which works

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked. 3. That learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case in confirming the net disallowance of Rs. 26,05,808/- (i.e. after allowing depreciation @ 15% on gross disallowance of Rs. 28,17,090/- which works

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CB RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 vi) That burden was upon the Assessing Officer and not on the assessee to establish that, what had been paid by way of commission would have been payable by way of dividend, which on the facts of appellant remains undischarged vii) That since there existed no statutory requirement under the Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.B. RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 vi) That burden was upon the Assessing Officer and not on the assessee to establish that, what had been paid by way of commission would have been payable by way of dividend, which on the facts of appellant remains undischarged vii) That since there existed no statutory requirement under the Income

SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2009-10

charitable organization under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The upholding of the disallowance under section 14A of the expenses of Rs.2,50,394/- by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjust and not in accordance with the law in force. 3. The appellant craves to leave, alter, amend, add, delete and modify the grounds of appeal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2009-10

charitable organization under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The upholding of the disallowance under section 14A of the expenses of Rs.2,50,394/- by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjust and not in accordance with the law in force. 3. The appellant craves to leave, alter, amend, add, delete and modify the grounds of appeal

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Trust [1992]\n195 ITR 825/65 Taxman 273 (Cal.) as well as in the case of CIT v.\nSankalp Welfare Society [2008] 303 ITR 64 (Punj. & Har.). The\naudit report can be furnished before completing the assessment. [Para\n9]\nIn the instant case, the Assessing Officer had not asked for any\ninformation before denying the exemption for which the assessee

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

14A completely infructuous. Such interpretation is clearly not in line with the established procedure of Harmonious Interpretation as laid down by the Hon’ble SC in the landmark cases of: 1) Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India [1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court enunciated the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

14A completely infructuous. Such interpretation is clearly not in line with the established procedure of Harmonious Interpretation as laid down by the Hon’ble SC in the landmark cases of: 1) Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India [1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court enunciated the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

charitable trust, the surplus accumulated u/s 11(2) of the Act as discussed above got utilized to the extent of Rs. 20 Crores, thus, the Provisions of Section 11(3) (c)/11(3) (d) of the Act got attracted. In view of the above, the assessee computed revised return of income under revised statement of computation of total income

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

Trust [1992]\n195 ITR 825/65 Taxman 273 (Cal.) as well as in the case of CIT v.\nSankalp Welfare Society [2008] 303 ITR 64 (Punj. & Har.). The\naudit report can be furnished before completing the assessment. [Para\n9]\nIn the instant case, the Assessing Officer had not asked for any\ninformation before denying the exemption for which the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. TECHNO TREXIM INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

trust. Thus, the provisions of Section 47(iii) are\nfound applicable in the instant case. The assessee has rightly pointed out that\nsuch loss on transfer of shares of Rs.45,80,54,000/- has not been claimed\nunder normal computation of income, since the same has been added back\nunder normal computation. As regards MAT computation, the AO has\ndisallowed

TECHNO TREXIM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

trust. Thus, the provisions of Section 47(iii) are\nfound applicable in the instant case. The assessee has rightly pointed out that\nsuch loss on transfer of shares of Rs.45,80,54,000/- has not been claimed\nunder normal computation of income, since the same has been added back\nunder normal computation. As regards MAT computation, the AO has\ndisallowed

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (SC) and CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 416 ITR 613 (SC). 6.8.3 The contention of the assessee is that it has not let out any property or part thereof, instead it has been allowing the spaces for commercial use by commercially exploiting the property for the purpose of business. Therefore the impugned income from

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) had applied 0.5 per cent of total average investments instead of average investments which had yielded dividend income and hence computation of disallowance was entirely misconceived in law. Reliance can be placed on ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2015) 62 taxmann.com 71. Thus learned AO has erred while making disallowance when

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) had applied 0.5 per cent of total average investments instead of average investments which had yielded dividend income and hence computation of disallowance was entirely misconceived in law. Reliance can be placed on ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2015) 62 taxmann.com 71. Thus learned AO has erred while making disallowance when

SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

charitable trust. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessing officer’s calculation and taxing the gains from sale of property by the assessee as business income instead of capital gains. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 74106972/- made by the assessing officer on account of profit from STPI Bangalore

ACIT, MEERUT vs. SH. ASHISH GUPTA, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

14A read with Rule 8D can be made. 10. The assessee has claimed expenses of Rs. 80,415/- on securities transaction tax, in the total expenses of Rs.21,04,632/-, which relates to earning of Capital Gains on 4 Ashish Gupta Shares and is not related to business income. The terms of Seventh proviso to section