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

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

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

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

MITHILA AND MITHILA ENTERPRISE,NEW DELHI vs. WARD- 49(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (F) Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 264 (Cal). 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(viia

MITHILA AND MITHILA ENTERPRISE,DELHI vs. WARD 49(4) DELHI , DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (F) Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 264 (Cal). 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(viia

MITHILA AND MITHILA ENTERPRISE,NEW DELHI vs. WARD- 49(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (F) Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 264 (Cal). 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(viia

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

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

VIIA – basis of POCM Working for 8 VIID projects Page 4 of 144 16. TOR – 15 & 20 Reclassification of Income 321 326 8,15,68,758 Volume – VIII from House property Reconciliation of rental 326 329 4,49,85,573 income with TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid

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

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

VIIA – basis of POCM Working for 8 VIID projects Page 4 of 144 16. TOR – 15 & 20 Reclassification of Income 321 326 8,15,68,758 Volume – VIII from House property Reconciliation of rental 326 329 4,49,85,573 income with TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid

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

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause

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

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

viia) that governs the taxation of receipts of shares of a company, the AO could not have invoked Section 28(iv) of the Act in respect of such transaction. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. I TO VI GROUND NO. VII: REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ("DVO") BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 142A OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section