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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3) to the\nfifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of 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

ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13(3) of the Act and denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5. From the aforesaid grounds raised by the department it would be clear that the main grievance of the department in this appeal relates to action of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of depreciation

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13(3) of the Act and denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5. From the aforesaid grounds raised by the department it would be clear that the main grievance of the department in this appeal relates to action of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

3. In brief, the assessee is a Trust registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). It e-filed its return for AY 2016-17 on 15.10.2016 disclosing income at ‘nil’ after claiming its entire income as except under section 11 ad 12 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice(s) were

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

3) of the Income Tax Act? (b) Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 80 of the Income Tax Act do not apply to unabsorbed depreciation covered by Section 32(2) of the Act?” ITA No. 164/2008 Page 4 of 13

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

13) of the Act needs to be annulled or quashed on the basis of this ground alone.\n10. 10. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP has erred in law in not entirely deleting the proposed erroneous additions amounting to Rs. 4,68,86,17,357/- while framing order u/s 144C

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 13(1), the trust will lose the exemption in respect of entire income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 3

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 13(1), the trust will lose the exemption in respect of entire income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 3

M/S. J.H. BUSINESS INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

13 B, 3 B, 3 Floor, Floor, Floor, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR. Date of hearing

M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK AROMATICS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

13 B, 3 B, 3 Floor, Floor, Floor, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR. Date of hearing

M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK AROMATICS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

13 B, 3 B, 3 Floor, Floor, Floor, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR. Date of hearing

M/S. J.H. FINVEST PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

13 B, 3 B, 3 Floor, Floor, Floor, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR. Date of hearing

M/S. BHARAT EXPORTS CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

13 B, 3 B, 3 Floor, Floor, Floor, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR. Date of hearing

M/S. J.H. FINVEST PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

13 B, 3 B, 3 Floor, Floor, Floor, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR. Date of hearing

M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK AROMATICS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

13 B, 3 B, 3 Floor, Floor, Floor, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, Daryaganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. PAN : AABCJ1341H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR. Date of hearing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

depreciation on above capital expenditure of Rs.5,05,460/- is being granted to the assessee @ 5% as the car was purchased in the month of February, 2020. With respect to non-GST purchases of Rs. 3,70,29,969/- for purchasing items like sand, mud, stone, crush, small stones etc., the assessee has submitted copies of bank statements reflecting payments

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TPO-1(2)(2), New Delhi (referred to as ‘the AO’) vide order dated 20.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has challenged the final order by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. 1. That on facts

HAMDARD NATION FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 1641/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Hamdard National Foundation Vs Acit(E), (India), Hamdard Building, 2A/3, New Delhi-110002 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaath0843G Assessee By : Sh. R. M. Mehta, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.06.2020

Section 13(3) of the Act without any evidence and without discharging the onus that lay on the AO under the law. 3. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the lease transactions were between two Charitable Institutions and no individual had derived any benefit there from. 2 Hamdard National Foundation 4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds even