DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form 37 from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form 37 from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book

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

32A or clause. (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form 37 from an accountant as defined in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section

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

32A or clause. (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form 37 from an accountant as defined in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section

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

32A or clause. (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form 37 from an accountant as defined in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GITWAKO FARMS (I) P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

delay in refiling the appeal is condoned subject to ITA No740/2010 Page 2 of 16 payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITR No.740/2009 1. Notice. Mr.Yadav enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. Heard the counsel for the parties. The present appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GITWAKO FARMS (I) P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

delay in refiling the appeal is condoned subject to 2011:DHC:1041-DB ITA No740/2010 Page 2 of 16 payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITR No.740/2010 1. Notice. Mr.Yadav enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. Heard the counsel for the parties

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII vs. KHANNA BROTHERS

The appeals are dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances, with no

delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of. ITA Nos. 972/2015, 967/2015 & 490/2015 5. These are three appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Act, 1961 (‘Act’). ITA Nos. 972 and 967 of 2015 are directed against the common order dated 14th June 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal