M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

2(22)(e) of the Act of Rs.79,23,834/- and Rs.60,00,000/- for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000- 01 respectively. The said additions were sustained by the CIT (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short). 5. On 17th October, 2011, the following substantial question of law was framed and the learned counsel

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

22)(e) will not be applicable in the present case. The issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, Ground Nos. 10 to 10.3 are allowed in favour of the assessee. 34. As regards to Ground No. 11 to11.1 relating to disallowance of payments made for advisory services availed from

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RITESH PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Vs. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Circle – 15(1), 11/5B, First Floor, Pussa Road, C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacr1437M (Applicant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 329/Del/2011 (In Ita No. 3920/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2008-09

2(22)(e) of the Act, to apply the mischief of the said section is not at all satisfied in the facts of the present case. Further, there is no denial of the submission made on behalf of the assessee that no other shareholder in the assessee simultaneously held more than 20% of the voting power in the assessee

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

22) of the Act. 6.7 The AO proceeded to pass the assessment order dated 31st January, 2001 assessing a sum of `12,80,66,147/-, being the surpluses as recorded in the books of the Assessee, as ‘undisclosed income’ during the block period. Separate penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act and under Section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

Depreciation on wind mill Not quantified 3,59,99,936 8. [GOA No. 1] [GOA No. 1] — 9. Rent paid for Director’s Residence, 22,80,000 directed to allow after verification 10. Commitment charges 2,54,24,680 2,19,47,951 — [GOA No. 3] [GOA No. 3] - 11. Depn. to be allowed after 7,68,370 — verification

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

Depreciation on wind mill Not quantified 3,59,99,936 8. [GOA No. 1] [GOA No. 1] — 9. Rent paid for Director’s Residence, 22,80,000 directed to allow after verification 10. Commitment charges 2,54,24,680 2,19,47,951 — [GOA No. 3] [GOA No. 3] - 11. Depn. to be allowed after 7,68,370 — verification

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

Depreciation on wind mill Not quantified 3,59,99,936 8. [GOA No. 1] [GOA No. 1] — 9. Rent paid for Director’s Residence, 22,80,000 directed to allow after verification 10. Commitment charges 2,54,24,680 2,19,47,951 — [GOA No. 3] [GOA No. 3] - 11. Depn. to be allowed after 7,68,370 — verification

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Depreciation 2393 3 749 3145 Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi A Y 2007-08 P a g e | 34 Amortization 2242 -- 1620 3862 The segment assets and liabilities as at 31 December 2006 and capital expenditure for the year then ended are follows: Cairn India Capricorn Other Group 2006 Limited Energy Group Limited Group

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs. 19,11,47,917 on „leasehold rights‟ in land under section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act can even otherwise be allowed as additional ground by the Hon‟ble Tribunal. Re: Deduction of education cess on income tax 22. That the assessing officer/ Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP‟) erred on facts

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

22,160\n688,50,77,825\n7,01,99,99,985\n43\nITA No. 2542/Del/2024\n* Originally issued by Otter Limited who subsequently sold it to Link\nInvestment Trust.\n04. It is evident that the subscribers to the above share capital were all\nnon-residents on which provisions of section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable. Hence, as\nper

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed section 32(2) for computing its income whereas the income from profit and gains of the business or profession

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT( A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,16,38,515/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

E) starts from Section 45 and goes up to Section 55A of the Act. Section 45 defines capital gains and sub-section (1) thereof reads as under: “Section 45 (1) (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer 737 of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Ashok Kumar Bansal, Vs. Acit, Flat No.713, Itl Northex Towers, Circle-47(1), Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aafpb4123N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2019 Order

section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act are not applicable. I, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) 4 and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are accordingly allowed. 8. The second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order

M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

depreciation adjustment) claimed by the Appellant and thus consequently arriving at an erroneous mark-up on cost for the comparable companies selected in the TP Order.” AY: 2011-12 “1. TP adjustment with respect to Business Process Outsourcing (‘BPO’) services segment from Associated Enterprises other than IBM World Trade Corporation (‘IBM WTC’) and IBM United Kingdom Ltd, (‘IBM UK’) That

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

depreciation adjustment) claimed by the Appellant and thus consequently arriving at an erroneous mark-up on cost for the comparable companies selected in the TP Order.” AY: 2011-12 “1. TP adjustment with respect to Business Process Outsourcing (‘BPO’) services segment from Associated Enterprises other than IBM World Trade Corporation (‘IBM WTC’) and IBM United Kingdom Ltd, (‘IBM UK’) That

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee by seeking to bring the amounts advanced by PCPL to PRPL as deemed dividend considering the same to have been paid as loans in lieu of dividend. ITA Nos. 622, 641, 698 & 642/Del/2024 Rajeev Kumar Arora 8. But from perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reproduced