ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A direction and the ld CIT (A) in his order are neither distinguished nor challenged by the ld AR and therefore, same are accepted and therefore claim of the assessee that it is revenue expenditure cannot be allowed. 16. He further stated that the alternative submission of the assessee that depreciation on it should be allowed clearly shows that

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A direction and the ld CIT (A) in his order are neither distinguished nor challenged by the ld AR and therefore, same are accepted and therefore claim of the assessee that it is revenue expenditure cannot be allowed. 16. He further stated that the alternative submission of the assessee that depreciation on it should be allowed clearly shows that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Section 144A on 28.2.2006 the assessing officer has completed the assessment without providing any further opportunity. It would be seen that during the course of all these correspondence only legal issues regarding reopening to the assessment as well as claim of deduction have been discussed because reassessment itself was bad in law and reply to other reasons and filing explanation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Section 144A on 28.2.2006 the assessing officer has completed the assessment without providing any further opportunity. It would be seen that during the course of all these correspondence only legal issues regarding reopening to the assessment as well as claim of deduction have been discussed because reassessment itself was bad in law and reply to other reasons and filing explanation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Section 144A on 28.2.2006 the assessing officer has completed the assessment without providing any further opportunity. It would be seen that during the course of all these correspondence only legal issues regarding reopening to the assessment as well as claim of deduction have been discussed because reassessment itself was bad in law and reply to other reasons and filing explanation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 144A on 28.2.2006 the assessing officer has completed the assessment without providing any further opportunity. It would be seen that during the course of all these correspondence only legal issues regarding reopening to the assessment as well as claim of deduction have been discussed because reassessment itself was bad in law and reply to other reasons and filing explanation

M/s JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the appeal is allowed and

depreciation and also the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income TAx under Section 144A cannot be sustained. We are in agreement

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on fixed assets of corporate office which resulted in increase of profit eligible for deduction u/s SOIB/SOIC of the Act to that extent. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the reduction in eligible profit of Rs.9,47,79,501/- made by AO by taking into consideration

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on fixed assets of corporate office which resulted in increase of profit eligible for deduction u/s SOIB/SOIC of the Act to that extent. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the reduction in eligible profit of Rs.9,47,79,501/- made by AO by taking into consideration

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

144A,: (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

144A,: (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

144A,: (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner

M/S. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L. P. Sahu.

144A of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2011-12 on the identical issue in which the learned Addl. Commissioner issued the directions vide order dated 20th March, 2015 directing the Assessing Officer to follow decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of JDS Apparels (P.) Ltd. (supra). It, therefore, stands concluded that assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TONY ELECTRONICS LTD

Section 144A by the Additional CIT restricting disallowance to 10 per cent of the gross profit on sales. ITANos.633£ 1053/2010 Page 3 of4 2015:DHC:11127-DB 8. The ITAT in the impugned order has noted that losses had been incurred in Unit-II in the earlier AY, i.e. 1995-96, as well as the succeeding

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TONYU ELECTRONICS LTD

Section 144A by the Additional CIT restricting disallowance to 10 per cent of the gross profit on sales. ITANos.633£ 1053/2010 Page 3 of4 2015:DHC:11127-DB 8. The ITAT in the impugned order has noted that losses had been incurred in Unit-II in the earlier AY, i.e. 1995-96, as well as the succeeding

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TONYU ELECTRONICS LTD

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 144A by the Additional CIT restricting disallowance to 10 per cent of the gross profit on sales. ITANos.633£ 1053/2010 Page 3 of4 8. The ITAT in the impugned order has noted that losses had been incurred in Unit-II in the earlier AY, i.e. 1995-96, as well as the succeeding AY, i.e. 1997-98. Accordingly, the addition sustained

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. TONY ELECTRONICS LIMITED

Section 144A by the Additional CIT restricting disallowance to 10 per cent of the gross profit on sales. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026

UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act in compliance of the order/directions dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Ld. DRP, is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making additions

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

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Ad. 1961 which was forwarded to the Range Head on the very same day. The Range Head of this unit on 27.00.2022 has given the following directions u/s 144A of the Act. 1. Being the data of High Risk Billers received from the CBIC and the CASS Rationale highlighted to verify the genuineness