COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

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

depreciation, it was not necessary that the return should have been filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1) read with Section 139(3

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

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanti.T.A. No.2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Splendor Landbase Of Income, Central Vs. Limited, Circle-3, F-38/2, Splendor House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 215/Del/2016 In I.T.A. No. 2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S Splendor Landbase Assistant Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income, Central Circle- F-38/2, Splendor House, 3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of the Act apply to business losses and not to unabsorbed depreciation which was exclusively governed by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act. That being so, the period of limitation for filing loss return as provided under Section 139

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

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal raised by the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishiaddl. Cit, Vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd, Special Range-6, Room No. 352, C-27, Ground Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi Near Garden Of Five Senses Westend Marg, Paryavaran Complex, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn1424B (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation of the subsequent year and so on for the succeeding years. Neither section 139(3) nor section 32 lay down

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

depreciation. It is\npertinent to note that the aforementioned revised returns were\nfiled within the extended timeline provided by CBDT Circular dated\n30.09.2020, which allowed filing of revised returns for AY 2019-20\nup to 30.11.2020 under Section 139(5) of the Act.\n\n3.\nOn 26.11.2020, the CPC issued an intimation under Section\n143(1) of the Act proposing

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

139 Page 3 of 34 A.K.Babu Khan Vs. CIT (AP) 102 ITR 757 DCIT Vs. Vira Construction Co. (ITAT,Mum, TM) 61 ITD 33 Ramprasad Sharma Vs. CIT (All.)119 ITR 867 Dinesh B. Parikh Vs. CIT (Cal) 202 Taxman (Mag) 110 (6) That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and/or delete any ground(s) of appeal

SARAVJIT BHATIA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-11(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvajit Bhatia Income Tax Officer A-362, Dabua Colony, Pali Vs Ward – 11 (3) Road, Faridabad Faridabad Pan No.Akmpb4292K (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the Appellate Tribunal. Tax appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 16. I find the Mumbai Bench

ARVIND KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-18(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

139(1) of the I.T. Act to be eligible for the benefit of section 10AA of the I.T. Act. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA of the I.T. Act reads as follows:- “(8) The provisions of sub-sections (5)62 and (6) of section 10A shall apply to the articles or things or services referred to in sub-section

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

section 153C of\nthe Act was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on merit. Based on the facts of\nthe case and material available on record, the returned income of the assessee\nwas assessed by the Assessing Officer as under:\ni\nReturn Income as per Original Return u/s 139 of the :\nRs.81,46,110/-\nPage | 7\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025

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

depreciation of Rs. 9,14,57,036/- following the arbitrary transfer pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well

PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

139 or in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148 of the Act or (b) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. 4.8.3 Thus, whenever assessment is completed under section 143(3) or section 147 of the Act and four years have already elapsed from

M/S. SANYA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation under in-applicable section 139 (3), while c/f of un-absorbed depreciation is covered u/s 32 (2) of the Act and is allowable

M/S. SANYA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation under in-applicable section 139 (3), while c/f of un-absorbed depreciation is covered u/s 32 (2) of the Act and is allowable

J.D. WINES,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

depreciation of Rs.71850/- on Motor Lorry due to difference in cost price amounting to Rs.239500 on motor lorry by holding that no arguments or explanation was given at the appellate stage whereas the arguments and explanations were duly given in written submissions and it is explained that the difference in price is due to insurance and registration charges, which

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)

depreciation. 21. As regards to the issue agitated by the assessee in its appeal against the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the assessee violated the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act is concerned, it is noticed that the AO alleged that the management had unduly cost huge financial loss

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)

depreciation. 21. As regards to the issue agitated by the assessee in its appeal against the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the assessee violated the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act is concerned, it is noticed that the AO alleged that the management had unduly cost huge financial loss

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, - (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, - (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other