M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

15), (23G) and (33) of section 10 is directly governed by the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Supra) following the earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (supra). The Assessing Officer could not have ignored the binding precedent contained in the two Division Bench

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

15), (23G) and (33) of section 10 is directly governed by the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation v. Commissioner of Income- tax (Supra) following the earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (supra). The Assessing Officer could not have ignored the binding precedent contained in the two Division Bench

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

15), (23G) and (33) of section 10 is directly governed by the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation v. Commissioner of Income- tax (Supra) following the earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (supra). The Assessing Officer could not have ignored the binding precedent contained in the two Division Bench

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

15,636,462 as against Rs. 27,957,136 claimed by the appellant. 2.1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the fact that all the customers of the appellant are overseas entities outside the jurisdiction of Indian tax laws, and therefore there cannot

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

15,636,462 as against Rs. 27,957,136 claimed by the appellant. 2.1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the fact that all the customers of the appellant are overseas entities outside the jurisdiction of Indian tax laws, and therefore there cannot

DDIT (E), DELHI vs. M/S. ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

10 on the following grounds: 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,69,445/- on account of income assessed by the AO while invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

SECTION 56 "INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES without any deduction of expenses incurred for carrying out the same activity. 5. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse being self contradictory as well as contrary to the Act and registration granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) u/s 12AA read with S.2(15). 6. That the order

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs 2 63,24,271 four assessment year 2007 – 08, 3,42,75,837, for assessment year 2009 – 10, ₹ 49,442,411 for assessment year 2011 – 12 and Rs 1 14,00,586 for assessment year 2012 – 13. 10. With respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the income

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs 2 63,24,271 four assessment year 2007 – 08, 3,42,75,837, for assessment year 2009 – 10, ₹ 49,442,411 for assessment year 2011 – 12 and Rs 1 14,00,586 for assessment year 2012 – 13. 10. With respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the income

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs 2 63,24,271 four assessment year 2007 – 08, 3,42,75,837, for assessment year 2009 – 10, ₹ 49,442,411 for assessment year 2011 – 12 and Rs 1 14,00,586 for assessment year 2012 – 13. 10. With respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the income

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs 2 63,24,271 four assessment year 2007 – 08, 3,42,75,837, for assessment year 2009 – 10, ₹ 49,442,411 for assessment year 2011 – 12 and Rs 1 14,00,586 for assessment year 2012 – 13. 10. With respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the income

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs 2 63,24,271 four assessment year 2007 – 08, 3,42,75,837, for assessment year 2009 – 10, ₹ 49,442,411 for assessment year 2011 – 12 and Rs 1 14,00,586 for assessment year 2012 – 13. 10. With respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

10. Section 80-IA was introduced by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1st April, 1996. It exempted an enterprise carrying on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. To be eligible for deduction, an assessee had to carry out all the three activities, i.e., (i) to develop, (ii) to maintain, and (iii) to operate. After the amendment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

10. Section 80-IA was introduced by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1st April, 1996. It exempted an enterprise carrying on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. To be eligible for deduction, an assessee had to carry out all the three activities, i.e., (i) to develop, (ii) to maintain, and (iii) to operate. After the amendment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

10. Section 80-IA was introduced by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1st April, 1996. It exempted an enterprise carrying on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. To be eligible for deduction, an assessee had to carry out all the three activities, i.e., (i) to develop, (ii) to maintain, and (iii) to operate. After the amendment

ACIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

15) of I.T. Act read with 3rd proviso to Section 143(3) of I.T. Act was invoked and exemption U/s 10(23C)(iv) was denied to the assessee. Further, out of assessee’s claim for depreciation

ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. SONDHI CHARITABLE HOSPITAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

depreciation on assets purchased during the year: Rs. 3,00,949/- Total Application of Income Rs. 3,00,90,296/- Rs. 2,95,79,570/- Add: Amount as per Section 69 Deemed Income Rs. 14,000/- Deemed income Rs. 2,95,93,570/- 2.1 It has been noted by the Assessing officer in the assessment order that the assessee

ITO (E), DELHI vs. ALL INDIAN FINE ARTS & CRAFTS SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. R. K. Pandaita No. 1806/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer(E), Vs All India Fine Arts & Crafts Trust Ward-1(1), Society, 1, Rafi Marg, Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaata7840E Assessee By : Sh. Rajan Malik, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing :29.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2019 Order Per R. K. Panda:

15,960/-. While computing income so determined, he further disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee on the ground that the cost of assets had already been treated as application of income while assessing the income of the assessee u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. Therefore, the depreciation cannot be allowed again which will amount to double deduction