DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

3 appearing in the Central Excise\nNotification Nos.56 and 57 of 11-11-2002, thus, makes it amply clear\nthat the acceleration of development of industries in the State was\ncontemplated with the object of generation of employment in the State\nof Jammu and Kashmir and the generation of employment, so\ncontemplated, was not only casual or temporary

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii) any interest charged under this Act; (iii) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii) any interest charged under this Act; (iii) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii) any interest charged under this Act; (iii) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii ) any interest charged under this Act; (iii ) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv ) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii ) any interest charged under this Act; (iii ) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv ) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts