DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

249/-. According to the assessing officer only a return filed u/s 139 (1) of the income tax act can be revised and return filed u/s 139 (3) of the act cannot be revised. The learned CIT – A relying on the decision of Honourable madras High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Periyar District cooperative Milk producers union

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

249/-. According to the assessing officer only a return filed u/s 139 (1) of the income tax act can be revised and return filed u/s 139 (3) of the act cannot be revised. The learned CIT – A relying on the decision of Honourable madras High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Periyar District cooperative Milk producers union

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on computer peripherals considering them as computers [ Ground no 2 in appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] vii. Disallowance of bad debts written off [ Ground no 1 of appeal of AO for AY 2007-08] ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 and 2008-09 Jindal Steel Limited Vs ACIT Cen Circle

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on computer peripherals considering them as computers [ Ground no 2 in appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] vii. Disallowance of bad debts written off [ Ground no 1 of appeal of AO for AY 2007-08] ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 and 2008-09 Jindal Steel Limited Vs ACIT Cen Circle

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 40(a)(i) are directed to be deleted. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal stand allowed. In view of this decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee, the advance ruling relied on by the ld. DR does not help the revenue, as the said ruling is binding on that applicant and not upon the Tribunal u/s. 245S

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGAN AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Circle 4(1) No. 14, Dda Transport Centre, New Delhi. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7818F & C.O. No.220/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09) M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.14, Dda Transport Centre, Vs Circle-4(1), Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aabcj7818F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019

249/- on account of excess stock instead of Rs.2,67,99,018/- surrendered on the date of survey. There was no change in the amount of Rs.13,98,903/- on account of excess cash offered to tax on the date of survey. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.85,46,152/- was offered to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources

TEREX EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

section 32(1) (iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the pre-text that additional depreciation is not available on routine additions made to plant & machinery. 2.2. In disallowing the interest expenditure incurred by the Appellant for legitimate business purpose. The above 'Grounds of Appeal' are all independent and without prejudice to one and another. The Appellant craves leave

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishimahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, Dcit Ltu, 9, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aaacm.828R (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Ltu, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, New Delhi 9, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aaacm.828R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Depreciation allowance in view of the provisions of sub-section (5) and the profits for the year for the undertaking cannot be taken towards deduction as such. In the absence of such working as is mandated by the statutorily prescribed form NO.10CCB report (read with instructions thereto), it is not possible to ascertain the correct amount of the deduction

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

3 where the complete details are provided for. Hence he submitted that appellant had worked out the provision on a scientific basis, which is clearly borne out Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 55 of 484 from the contemporaneous

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

249 to 251 and page 199 respectively. The learned counsel submitted that in the instant case also there is no relation of agency with the retailers, who buy the products from the agencies appointed by the state for procuring goods from the assessee. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam bench in the case

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

249 to 251 and page 199 respectively. The learned counsel submitted that in the instant case also there is no relation of agency with the retailers, who buy the products from the agencies appointed by the state for procuring goods from the assessee. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam bench in the case

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

249 to 251 and page 199 respectively. The learned counsel submitted that in the instant case also there is no relation of agency with the retailers, who buy the products from the agencies appointed by the state for procuring goods from the assessee. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam bench in the case

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

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

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

3. D.J. Mehta Vs. Income Tax Officer, 290 ITR 238 (Mum.) (AT) In view of the above, finding no error with the order of the CIT(A) on the point at issue, the same is hereby confirmed. Ground no.3 is thus rejected." In the case of Jindal Photo Ltd. Vs. DCIT held in I.T.A.T. Delhi bench dated

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)

249 taxman.com 470, the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA No.2695/M/2017 order dated 07.09.2018 and various other decisions. So far as the merit of the case is concerned i.e. relating to deposit of cash and cheque in the bank account, he submitted that

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III

249. 2012:DHC:6705-DB ITA-492-12 Page 8 8. It was argued next that the question of permissibility of depreciation does not arise at all in this case because the business or commercial rights of similar nature referred to in Section 32(1)(ii) cannot be said to arise overnight on account of payment of non-competing

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), NEW DELHI

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

Depreciation as per audited financials 17,376,622 OPERATING EXPENSES (OPEX) 844,669,143 AE OPEX Allocation 52,87,54,805 15,67,50,637 15,91,63,702 844,669,143 OPERATING PROFIT (OP)- (B) 1203,91,576 356,90,373 413,82,562 1974,64,512 ACTUAL OP/OPEX % 22.77% 22.77% 26.00% TARGET OP/OPEX % 22.50% /22.50

M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORT,NEW 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