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

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

SUNITA KHEMKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

section 10(38) of the Act and therefore, the addition made and confirmed is invalid. 2.8 That various adverse findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are 12 ITA.No.389/Del./2018 Smt. Sunita Khemka, New Delhi. factually incorrect and contrary to record, legally misconceived and untenable. 2.9 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

38 to 42 sq. metre each on a total area of more than one acre of land at Sector 14, Dwarka, Phase-II, New Delhi, by the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA"). Both these continued in the year under consideration. The the contract receipts from these works during the year under consideration disclosed was `5,47,85,200/-. The profit from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

38 to 42 sq. metre each on a total area of more than one acre of land at Sector 14, Dwarka, Phase-II, New Delhi, by the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA"). Both these continued in the year under consideration. The the contract receipts from these works during the year under consideration disclosed was `5,47,85,200/-. The profit from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

38 to 42 sq. metre each on a total area of more than one acre of land at Sector 14, Dwarka, Phase-II, New Delhi, by the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA"). Both these continued in the year under consideration. The the contract receipts from these works during the year under consideration disclosed was `5,47,85,200/-. The profit from

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SITASHRI TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

10(38). AO has not mentioned this issue in questioner dated 11.12.2013. It was remain unnoticed till notice issued by the AO for the first time to scrutinise the case u/s 143(3). CIT (A) is not justified in deleting the penalty as had this case was not selected for scrutiny; the assessee would not have ever revised the computation

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

depreciation on fixed assets 12. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in enhancing the income of the assessee by Rs. 1,55,99,853/-, arbitrarily on the basis of conjecture and surmises, without any evidence on record with him.” 3. It was pointed out on the basis of the judgement of the Co- ordinate

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

DIVYA CREATION,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Divya Creation, Vs. Pr. Cit, Plot No. 97, Nsez, Noida Aayakar Bhawan, A2 D- Block, Sector 24, Noida Pan :Aadfd4879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

38 of the paper book, the Assessing Officer has raised a specific query with respect to the details of nature of the receipt in profit and loss account. He further submitted that the assessee filed a detailed explanation on this issue before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 23/11/2015 in the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. counsel submitted

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 24(a) of the Act. Ground No. 5: Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,81,24,572 on account of depreciation on assets other than building by treating entire income from leasing as income from house property without dividing the same proportionately between income from house

CIT vs. NARESH TREHAN

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation as tax planning. Rebutting the arguments of Mr. sahni, predicated on the alleged violation of terms of scheme of keyman insurance policy by assigning the same to the kayman, it was argued that no such contention was ever raised before the Authorities below. Even otherwise, the insurance company had accepted. the assignment. So much so, even the Department

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the arguments of Mr. Sahni, predicated on the alleged violation of terms of scheme of keyman insurance policy by assigning the same to the kayman, it was argued that no such contention was ever raised before the Authorities below. Even otherwise, the insurance company had accepted the assignment. So much so, even the Department

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the arguments of Mr. Sahni, predicated on the alleged violation of terms of scheme of keyman insurance policy by assigning the same to the kayman, it was argued that no such contention was ever raised before the Authorities below. Even otherwise, the insurance company had accepted the assignment. So much so, even the Department

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as allowed in the past. In the result, ground nos.2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Apropos ground nos.6 and 7, ld. counsel pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2006, filed revised computation of income claiming additional TDS of Rs.50,192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as allowed in the past. In the result, ground nos.2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Apropos ground nos.6 and 7, ld. counsel pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2006, filed revised computation of income claiming additional TDS of Rs.50,192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said

THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as allowed in the past. In the result, ground nos.2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Apropos ground nos.6 and 7, ld. counsel pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2006, filed revised computation of income claiming additional TDS of Rs.50,192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as allowed in the past. In the result, ground nos.2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Apropos ground nos.6 and 7, ld. counsel pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2006, filed revised computation of income claiming additional TDS of Rs.50,192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said