PURI OIL MILLS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

depreciation by adjusting the capital subsidy amount from the cost of the assets was wrong and unjustified, both on facts and in law by invoking the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii

PURI OIL MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

depreciation by adjusting the capital subsidy amount from the cost of the assets was wrong and unjustified, both on facts and in law by invoking the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

2(24) of the Act was introduced directly in to Finance Act, 2015\nwith effect from Assessment Year 2016-17 without providing any\nbackground in the memorandum explaining the Finance Bill. However, in\nthe Income Tax Act, it has been stated that it is applicable with effect from\n01.04.2016. Further from the press release dated 06.07.2016 ICDS had been\nmade

M/S. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-15(1), New Delhi Religare Finvest Ltd., D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan : Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 28.02.2013, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

XVIII, New Delhi, dated 28.02.2013, raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 12,57,382 (as against correct amount of Rs. 12,44,865) made by the assessing officer on account of the difference between purchase price of Stock Appreciation Right

SUNBEAM AUTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(24)(xviii) has been enlarged and held that since the amendment is effective from AY 2016-17, it will not apply to a case prior thereto. The Ld. AR relied on many other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its own case. 7.6 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNBEAM AUTO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(24)(xviii) has been enlarged and held that since the amendment is effective from AY 2016-17, it will not apply to a case prior thereto. The Ld. AR relied on many other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its own case. 7.6 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT

SUNBEAM AUTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(24)(xviii) has been enlarged and held that since the amendment is effective from AY 2016-17, it will not apply to a case prior thereto. The Ld. AR relied on many other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its own case. 7.6 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT

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

SUNBEAM LIGHTWEIGHTING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD (FORMELY SUNBEAM AUTO PVT LTD),GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

section 2(24)(xviii) has been enlarged and held that since the amendment is effective from AY 2016-17, it will not apply to a case prior thereto. The Ld. AR relied on many other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its own case. 7.6 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT

DCIT CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI vs. SUNBEAM AUTO PVT LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

section 2(24)(xviii) has been enlarged and held that since the amendment is effective from AY 2016-17, it will not apply to a case prior thereto. The Ld. AR relied on many other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its own case. 7.6 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

24 not examined by the AO in terms of section 40A(2) of the Act, it is emphatically submitted that ASSPL does not qualify as a related party to the assessee in terms of provision of section 40A(2) of the Act, which is also evident from the fact that the said transaction has not be reported in Clause

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units