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

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'vatav kasar' of Rs.44,98,210/- which was held to be not deductible as a bad debt

M/S. MITSUI & CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section (2), it is immaterial whether these are paid in India or outside India. On the other hand, amount received or deemed to be received have to be in India.” 29. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex court has held that the amount which is covered in clause (a) only will be within the purview of section 44BB

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MITSUI AND CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section (2), it is immaterial whether these are paid in India or outside India. On the other hand, amount received or deemed to be received have to be in India.” 29. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex court has held that the amount which is covered in clause (a) only will be within the purview of section 44BB

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MITSUI & CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section (2), it is immaterial whether these are paid in India or outside India. On the other hand, amount received or deemed to be received have to be in India.” 29. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex court has held that the amount which is covered in clause (a) only will be within the purview of section 44BB

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MITSUI & CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section (2), it is immaterial whether these are paid in India or outside India. On the other hand, amount received or deemed to be received have to be in India.” 29. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex court has held that the amount which is covered in clause (a) only will be within the purview of section 44BB

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

2) Delivery to carrier-Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, and does not reserve the right of disposal, he is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

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

256 ITR 179 (Del.) • CIT v. Nilofer I. Singh: 309 ITR 233 (Delhi) • CIT v. Nilofer I Singh :309 ITR 233 (Del.) • Dev Kumar Jain v. ITO : 309 ITR 240 (Del.) • Sanjay Chawla v. ITO: 89 ITD 586 (Del.) • Bigjos Stores (P) Limited v. ACIT: 106 Taxman 127 (Del.) 21. Clarifying the intention of legislature, Mr. Vohra submitted that, wherever

M/S NHPC LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in not considering the other income of Rs.2,99,54,875/- for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80lA of the Act. (ii) That the above said disallowance

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. NHPC LTD., FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in not considering the other income of Rs.2,99,54,875/- for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80lA of the Act. (ii) That the above said disallowance

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 041449/–. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 041449/–. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 041449/–. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 041449/–. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 041449/–. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 041449/–. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant