ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation chart for the assessment year 2005-06 clearly shows that there was no plant or machinery, which could be utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of handicraft items. On the other hand, the statement of asset for the assessment year 2006-07 clearly shows an addition of machinery of Rs. 35,100 which comprised of various tools/machines used

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation chart for the assessment year 2005-06 clearly shows that there was no plant or machinery, which could be utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of handicraft items. On the other hand, the statement of asset for the assessment year 2006-07 clearly shows an addition of machinery of Rs. 35,100 which comprised of various tools/machines used

ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI vs. J. KISHORE EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

depreciation, mobile expenditure and telephone expenditure to the extent of 20%. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of non-deduction of tax and restricted the addition to the extent of 10% of the expenditure. 4. Aggrieved against

M/S DIGITAL RADIO (DELHI) BROADCASTING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No 1316 &1317/Del/2011 and ITA

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm Andsh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd. V Acit C/O. O.P. Sapra & Associates, S Circle-10(1) C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Acit V Digital Radio (Delhi) Circle-10(1) S Broadcasting Ltd. New Delhi 401, Dakha House, 18/17, Wea Karol Bagh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Kolkata) V Acit Broadcasting Ltd. S Circle-10(1) C/O. O.P. Sapra & New Delhi Associates, C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7863G

249/- as paid over the period of 10 years as per license term. b) Rs. 78,55,000/- u/s 37 (1) of the act being the annual license fee expenditure incurred by the assessee. 07. There is no dispute about the claim of deduction of assessee of Rs 3,00,80,222/- paid under phase – II of the licensing terms

VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

2(29BA) of the Act with effect from 1.4.1999 do not take in its purview the claim of the assessee. According to the assessing officer, to claim additional depreciation available under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee should be engaged in the manufacture or production of any article or thing. Since the assessee is in the business

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." 2. We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court and hold

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." 2. We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court and hold

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

249 (Mad.) has decided the issue by following earlier judgement as under:- 3. “The assessee is engaged in the business of software export. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee-company has filed return of income on November 13, 2003, admitting a total income of Rs. 2,34,810 after claiming deduction under section

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

249 (Mad.) has decided the issue by following earlier judgement as under:- 3. “The assessee is engaged in the business of software export. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee-company has filed return of income on November 13, 2003, admitting a total income of Rs. 2,34,810 after claiming deduction under section

PINGASH MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

249- 279) 9 Information Yes- 133(6) - Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 131 sought by the Ld. Could not be Partly Complied complied by all summon replied AO u/s 133(6) or complied complied- by one investors except vide online reply summon issued Pg 3 of AO investor one - Pg 3 of AO dated

VIDHI CINEMAS PVT.LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

249- 279) 9 Information Yes- 133(6) - Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 131 sought by the Ld. Could not be Partly Complied complied by all summon replied AO u/s 133(6) or complied complied- by one investors except vide online reply summon issued Pg 3 of AO investor one - Pg 3 of AO dated

GOPESH FABRICS PVT. LTD.,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(3) , FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

249- 279) 9 Information Yes- 133(6) - Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 131 sought by the Ld. Could not be Partly Complied complied by all summon replied AO u/s 133(6) or complied complied- by one investors except vide online reply summon issued Pg 3 of AO investor one - Pg 3 of AO dated

SHANTA BLANKETS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(3) , FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

249- 279) 9 Information Yes- 133(6) - Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 131 sought by the Ld. Could not be Partly Complied complied by all summon replied AO u/s 133(6) or complied complied- by one investors except vide online reply summon issued Pg 3 of AO investor one - Pg 3 of AO dated

ZHILMIL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

249- 279) 9 Information Yes- 133(6) - Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 133(6) Yes- 131 sought by the Ld. Could not be Partly Complied complied by all summon replied AO u/s 133(6) or complied complied- by one investors except vide online reply summon issued Pg 3 of AO investor one - Pg 3 of AO dated

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

depreciation) of Rs.3,51,250/-. The AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In response, the assessee had given the following explanation: “Entitlement for deduction of profits u/s 80IC: 1. Activities of the company are covered under point 13 of Part C of the Fourteenth Schedule as mentioned in Sub- Section 2

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

depreciation) of Rs.3,51,250/-. The AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In response, the assessee had given the following explanation: “Entitlement for deduction of profits u/s 80IC: 1. Activities of the company are covered under point 13 of Part C of the Fourteenth Schedule as mentioned in Sub- Section 2

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation can be given for the A.Y. 2005-06 and nor has the assessee claimed for it in the original Income and Expenditure A/c. Assessee has failed to provide the Revised audited accounts of the financial year 2004-05 i.e. A.Y, 2005-06, in place of it, the Assessee has submitted the Audited a/c financial year 2006-07. Computation

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation can be given for the A.Y. 2005-06 and nor has the assessee claimed for it in the original Income and Expenditure A/c. Assessee has failed to provide the Revised audited accounts of the financial year 2004-05 i.e. A.Y, 2005-06, in place of it, the Assessee has submitted the Audited a/c financial year 2006-07. Computation