MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

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

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

45 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 production of article or thing but is in fact providing services to the mineral oil concern, it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB. So, we are of the considered view that facts qua additional

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

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

45 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 production of article or thing but is in fact providing services to the mineral oil concern, it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB. So, we are of the considered view that facts qua additional

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

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

45 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 production of article or thing but is in fact providing services to the mineral oil concern, it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB. So, we are of the considered view that facts qua additional

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

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

45 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 production of article or thing but is in fact providing services to the mineral oil concern, it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB. So, we are of the considered view that facts qua additional

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

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

45 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 production of article or thing but is in fact providing services to the mineral oil concern, it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB. So, we are of the considered view that facts qua additional

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

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

45 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 production of article or thing but is in fact providing services to the mineral oil concern, it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB. So, we are of the considered view that facts qua additional

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

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

45 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 production of article or thing but is in fact providing services to the mineral oil concern, it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB. So, we are of the considered view that facts qua additional

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence in terms of section 249(4) of the Act, the appeal

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence in terms of section 249(4) of the Act, the appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

45 of the Act in view ofthe provisions of section 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act. 5.1. However, there is a delay of 1726 days in filing the above Cross objection by the assessee. In this regard, the assessee filed Condonation petition which is reproduced as under:- Sub: Request for condonation of delay in filing of cross objections before

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICE COMPANIES (NASSCOM)

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

45) of the Act. Having regard to the authorities noticed above and keeping in view the fact that the long- settled position, which has also been accepted by the CBDT, should not be upset, particularly where the statute which we are dealing with 2012:DHC:3211-DB ITA 17/2011 etc. Page 11 of 38 is an all-India statute

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

45) of the Act. Having regard to the authorities noticed above and keeping in view the fact that the long- settled position, which has also been accepted by the CBDT, should not be upset, particularly where the statute which we are dealing with 2012:DHC:3211-DB ITA 17/2011 etc. Page 11 of 38 is an all-India statute

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

condonation of delay. (m). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court eventually directed that the entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing limitation, and the balance period of limitation available on 15.03.2020 would commence from 01.03.2022. (n). Further, in cases where the limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the Court granted all persons a fresh

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NAGESHWAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee