DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.), CHANDIGARH

In the result, ITA.No.4692/Del

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

43B, Chandigarh. New Delhi. PAN AAATG5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Gupta, C.A. And Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate Date of Hearing : 11.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 2 ITA.No.4775 & 4692/Del./2015 M/s. Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust (Regd.), Chandigarh. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : The above cross-appeals are preferred

GIAN SUGAR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.),CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.4692/Del

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

43B, Chandigarh. New Delhi. PAN AAATG5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Gupta, C.A. And Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate Date of Hearing : 11.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 2 ITA.No.4775 & 4692/Del./2015 M/s. Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust (Regd.), Chandigarh. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : The above cross-appeals are preferred

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) for delayed payment of employees’ contribution as per the due date prescribed under the PF / ESI legislature

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) for delayed payment of employees’ contribution as per the due date prescribed under the PF / ESI legislature

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) for delayed payment of employees’ contribution as per the due date prescribed under the PF / ESI legislature

DCIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. GOODEARTH FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal Nos

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(E), Vs. Goodearth Foundation, Circle-1(1), Eicher House, Civic Centre, 12, Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatg5663R

Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Hence, Question

M/S GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Charitable Trust, vs. DCIT, SCO 109 – 110, Sector 43B, Central Circle 4, Chandigarh. New Delhi. (PAN : AAATG5827B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ravipratap Mall, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.02.2022 Date of Order : 23.02.2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution ; (iv) voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture or any other article as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, 2015:DHC:8430-DB ITA 705/2008, 924/2009 & W.P.(C) 3797/2011 Page

KAUR KOOKIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, DELHI-4, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Charitable Trust PROPOSITION IV: ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MERELY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GIVING REASONS IS A VITIATED ORDER ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Sunder Lai iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava& Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. KashiNath& Co. PROPOSITION V: REVISION ORDER CANNOT

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

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

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

Accordingly solitary ground of appeal and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narsimha Charythe Asst Commissioner Of Dlf Ltd Vs. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Dlf Circle – 10 (1) Universal Ltd) New Delhi Dlf Centre, Sansad Marg New Delhi Pan Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable trust is also demonstrated, therefore, the disallowance of the statutory deduction u/s 24 (a) is a simple disallowance and does not involve any element of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted. Though learned departmental representative could not point out the reason that mere disallowance of the statutory claim when the assessee

NOVO MANAGEMENT CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmanovo Management Consulting Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd, 440, Ground Floor, Gali Ward-18(4), No D-22, Chattarpur, Pahari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecn5211B

section 43B of IT Act even if there is delay in deposit of employee share of ESI and EPF, it is still allowable in case actual payment is made before the due date of filing of the Return of Income for the relevant year. Ld counsel submitted that the ld CIT(A) had failed to take into consideration the judgment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OXIGEN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue and Cross objections of the assessees stand dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

43B, Okhl Industrial Area, Phase-III, New Delhi PAN: AAACM0322J 83. 2940/D/15 ITO Ward 32(3), Raj Kumari 2010-11 None Civic Centre, New B-2, Lakeview Delhi Apartment, 886, Ward No.8, Mehrauli, New Delhi PAN: BHSPK8701N 84. 1122/D/15 DCIT, Circle 13(2) Jetair Pvt. Ltd. 2009-10 None New Delhi 13, Community Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi PAN: AAACJ0121C

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

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

43B 19. TOR – 29 Disallowance u/s 14A read 354 360 16,47,55,000 Volume – IX with Rule 8D 20. Term of Capitalization of Revenue 360 362 2,13,94,580 Reference No.31, Expenditure Volume X 21. TOR – 35 Late Construction Charges 363 367 1,88,81,388 Volume – X 22. TOR – 33 Prior Period Expenses

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

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

43B 19. TOR – 29 Disallowance u/s 14A read 354 360 16,47,55,000 Volume – IX with Rule 8D 20. Term of Capitalization of Revenue 360 362 2,13,94,580 Reference No.31, Expenditure Volume X 21. TOR – 35 Late Construction Charges 363 367 1,88,81,388 Volume – X 22. TOR – 33 Prior Period Expenses