DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") against the order dated April 30, 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 30, New Delhi ("referred to as learned CIT(A)") in relation to the appeal filed against the assessment order dated March 30, 2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

ACIT CIRCLE 25(1) , DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. , DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") against the order dated April 30, 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 30, New Delhi ("referred to as learned CIT(A)") in relation to the appeal filed against the assessment order dated March 30, 2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") against the order dated April 30, 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 30, New Delhi ("referred to as learned CIT(A)") in relation to the appeal filed against the assessment order dated March 30, 2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") against the order dated April 30, 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 30, New Delhi ("referred to as learned CIT(A)") in relation to the appeal filed against the assessment order dated March 30, 2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") against the order dated April 30, 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 30, New Delhi ("referred to as learned CIT(A)") in relation to the appeal filed against the assessment order dated March 30, 2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") against the order dated April 30, 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 30, New Delhi ("referred to as learned CIT(A)") in relation to the appeal filed against the assessment order dated March 30, 2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") against the order dated April 30, 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 30, New Delhi ("referred to as learned CIT(A)") in relation to the appeal filed against the assessment order dated March 30, 2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

ACIT, HISAR vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

253 wherein the Court held that the character of a subsidy in 29 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. the hands of the recipient, whether revenue or capital, is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. It was further held that if the purpose of the subsidy is to help the assessee

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED vs. ADDL. CIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

253 wherein the Court held that the character of a subsidy in 29 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. the hands of the recipient, whether revenue or capital, is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. It was further held that if the purpose of the subsidy is to help the assessee

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

253 wherein the Court held that the character of a subsidy in 29 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. the hands of the recipient, whether revenue or capital, is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. It was further held that if the purpose of the subsidy is to help the assessee

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

253 wherein the Court held that the character of a subsidy in 29 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. the hands of the recipient, whether revenue or capital, is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. It was further held that if the purpose of the subsidy is to help the assessee

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

253 wherein the Court held that the character of a subsidy in 29 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. the hands of the recipient, whether revenue or capital, is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. It was further held that if the purpose of the subsidy is to help the assessee

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

253 wherein the Court held that the character of a subsidy in 29 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. the hands of the recipient, whether revenue or capital, is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. It was further held that if the purpose of the subsidy is to help the assessee

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

253 wherein the Court held that the character of a subsidy in 29 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. the hands of the recipient, whether revenue or capital, is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. It was further held that if the purpose of the subsidy is to help the assessee

ACIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

253 wherein the Court held that the character of a subsidy in 29 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. the hands of the recipient, whether revenue or capital, is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. It was further held that if the purpose of the subsidy is to help the assessee

PUNE SOLAPUR EXPRESSWAYS P.LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

253(1 )(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) against the order dated December 13, 2017 (received on March 14, 2018) passed under section 250(6) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 38, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2013-14. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

HARISH CHAND RAM KALI CHARITABLE TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee partly

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishiharish Chand Ram Kali Vs. The Addl Commissioner Of Charitable Trust Income Tax Kf-91, Kavi Nagar Range-1 Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Up Up Pan: Aath3018B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11 (4A) of the Act applies. 6. The learned assessing officer further found that assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs 2,74,10,629/– in its income and expenditure account. The learned assessing officer noted that as fixed assets of the society has been created out of the exempt income and they are allowed as application of income

CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishicontainer Corporation Of India Ltd, Dcit, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Circle-3(1), C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Vs. New Delhi Hospital, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Acit, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Circle-3(1), C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Vs. New Delhi Hospital, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent)

253 (annexure 15) of the paper book and the same is reproduced below : "Dry port—Customs clearance depot located inland away from seaport(s) giving maritime access to it (see also inland container depot). ICD—Inland clearance depot—a terminal located in the hinterland of a gateway port serving as a dry port for customs examination and clearance of cargoes