KAVITA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT (A)/AO erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs.1,47,75,105/- out of the total depreciation

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

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs 1,04,90,324/- out of the total depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs 18,92,695/- out of the total depreciation

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

In the result, the both appeals of the Assessee in ITA\nNo

111A", "112", "32", "115JB", "143(3)", "44", "30", "43B", "36(1)(viia)"], "issues": "The core issues revolved around the admissibility of exemption under Section 10(38), the applicability of concessional tax rates under Section 111A/112, the validity of depreciation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEWSOFT OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1835/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09)

depreciation allowed by the A.O. 3. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2.1 The grounds of appeal are as follows: - (In C.O No. 213) “1. That the Learned A.O and Ld. CIT(A) both had erred on facts and in law, in making disallowance

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 111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation

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 111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation

RADIALS INTERNATIONAL vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management 2014:Dhc:2173-Db

depreciating value”, and that the PMS is supposed to “provide the skill and expertise to steer through the complex volatile and dynamic conditions of the market”. The order may be extracted in relevant part: “10. Under PMS a person deposits the money under the contract for a period normally not less one year. After depositing the money the investment

SH. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation on vehicles respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee appealed before the first appellate authority. The assessee made detailed written submissions before the first appellate authority and the ld. CIT(A) after considering the order of the Assessing Officer and submissions of the assessee, confirmed the addition of Rs.37,11,501/- and did not allow the carry

M/S. MADURA BIOTECH (P) LTD.,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and lead us to the conclusion that the assessee is indulging in activities of a trader in shares. As observed in Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (supra), it is a manner of first impression