M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. I. C. Sudhir, Jm Ita Nos. 2203 To 2207/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09 M/S New Okhla Industrial Vs Acit, Circle-1, Development Authority, Sector-6, Nodia Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaln0120A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Raj Rani Lakra & Reema Malik, Cas Revenue By: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 20.01.2014 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2008-09 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Noida.

Section 10(20) of the Act. It was stated that against the said order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the assessee filed SLP which had been admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.01.2014 (a reference was made to page no. 90 the assessee’s paper book). It was contended ITA Nos. 2203 to 2207/Del/2014

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)

20. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) dated 28.11.2013 raising following grounds of appeal:- “Re-assessment proceedings are bad in law 1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] has erred in upholding the order

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)

20. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) dated 28.11.2013 raising following grounds of appeal:- “Re-assessment proceedings are bad in law 1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] has erred in upholding the order

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

Section 10(38) of the Act. However, the matter needs to be restored to the files of the Ld. AO to enquire that claim of assessee u/s 10(38), fulfills the desired conditions about payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT). 20. In regard to ground No. 3 and 3.1, the admitted state of affairs is that in assessee

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

Section 10(38) of the Act. However, the matter needs to be restored to the files of the Ld. AO to enquire that claim of assessee u/s 10(38), fulfills the desired conditions about payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT).” Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and Ld. AO is directed to verify about the status

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

Section 10(38) of the Act. However, the matter needs to be restored to the files of the Ld. AO to enquire that claim of assessee u/s 10(38), fulfills the desired conditions about payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT).” Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and Ld. AO is directed to verify about the status

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

20% depreciation (i.e. 10% additional depreciation) under section 32(1)(iia) in AY 2007-08and allowance of balance 10

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

depreciation, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the deduction under section 1 OB is correct. The reference of the CIT(A) to sub-section (6) of section 10B is misplaced as the said sub-section provides for the procedure to be adopted in the year immediately following the year in which the tax holiday comes

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,71,55,977/- after making certain disallowances. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147, vide notice dated 30.10.2006, issued under section 148, purportedly on the basis of certain audit objection, which was completed vide order dated 24.12.2007 passed under section 148 r.w.s 143(3) after making further disallowances. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,71,55,977/- after making certain disallowances. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147, vide notice dated 30.10.2006, issued under section 148, purportedly on the basis of certain audit objection, which was completed vide order dated 24.12.2007 passed under section 148 r.w.s 143(3) after making further disallowances. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,71,55,977/- after making certain disallowances. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147, vide notice dated 30.10.2006, issued under section 148, purportedly on the basis of certain audit objection, which was completed vide order dated 24.12.2007 passed under section 148 r.w.s 143(3) after making further disallowances. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,71,55,977/- after making certain disallowances. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147, vide notice dated 30.10.2006, issued under section 148, purportedly on the basis of certain audit objection, which was completed vide order dated 24.12.2007 passed under section 148 r.w.s 143(3) after making further disallowances. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,71,55,977/- after making certain disallowances. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147, vide notice dated 30.10.2006, issued under section 148, purportedly on the basis of certain audit objection, which was completed vide order dated 24.12.2007 passed under section 148 r.w.s 143(3) after making further disallowances. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,71,55,977/- after making certain disallowances. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147, vide notice dated 30.10.2006, issued under section 148, purportedly on the basis of certain audit objection, which was completed vide order dated 24.12.2007 passed under section 148 r.w.s 143(3) after making further disallowances. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals