M/S. SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

depreciation was 14 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon. found allowable, which was allowed. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, granted benefit of Section 11(1

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

depreciation was 14 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon. found allowable, which was allowed. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, granted benefit of Section 11(1

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

Section 11(1) Rs. 24515.09 Lakhs 15% allowable accumulation Rs. 3677.26 Lakhs The Application of income: (extracted from Profit and loss Statement) Cost of material and establishment Rs. 14120.01 Lakhs Less: Depreciation

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

Section 11(1) Rs. 24515.09 Lakhs 15% allowable accumulation Rs. 3677.26 Lakhs The Application of income: (extracted from Profit and loss Statement) Cost of material and establishment Rs. 14120.01 Lakhs Less: Depreciation

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

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

11. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the following additions which are impugned in this appeal: a. Rs. 19,40,343/- on account of surplus claimed as application of income b. Rs. 5,44,011/-on account of disallowing the claim of depreciation on fixed assets 12. That

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

depreciation in respect of such assets. 31. In ITA No.322/2013, which relate to the assessment year 2007-08 the issues are consequential. In that year the assessing officer denied 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 38 of 40 exemption to the trust under Section 11 on the ground that there was a violation of Section 13(1

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

11. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed. Even the co-ordinate bench of Kolkata vide dealing with the appeal of the revenue in the case of Sri Biswajit Chatterjee (supra) has also held that CIT(A) has not power under the provision of law for giving any direction to AO for re-opening of assessment". Respectfully following

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

11. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed. Even the co-ordinate bench of Kolkata vide dealing with the appeal of the revenue in the case of Sri Biswajit Chatterjee (supra) has also held that CIT(A) has not power under the provision of law for giving any direction to AO for re-opening of assessment". Respectfully following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. CONTINENTAL PACKAGING P.LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NOKIA INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-1 vs. ALLIED STRIPS LTD

The appeals are dismissed

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment

C.I.T vs. INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORPORATION LTD

The appeals are dismissed

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment

THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIS SPARTA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BIOSEED RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S JINDAL EXPORTS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BRIJBASI ART PRESS LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment

CIT vs. OCL INDIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment