ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VAVASI TELEGANCE P.LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

depreciation claimed at Rs.1,07,43,586/- by the assessee, penalty proceedings have been initiated under sections 271(1)(c), 271B

B J SERVICES CO. MIDDLE EAST LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ADIT(INTL. TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

271B especially when the entire receipts of the assessee was liable to be chargeable to tax u/s 44BB and the assessee was neither required to maintain books of accounts nor get the same audited. Levy of interest 4 ITA No.3889/Del./2010, 421 & 4831/Del./2012 11. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section

SH. TARUN ARORA,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation coming from the Assessment Year 2012-13 which aggregated to Rs.155.35 crores. The assessee had availed various credit facilities from financial institutions and banks for setting up of the business and for operations. Unfortunately, there was a severe flood in factory area in August, 2011 due to cloud burst and since then assessee had suffered huge losses as operation

DCIT CIRCLE 61(1), DELHI vs. SUKHBIR SINGH CHABRA HUF, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Depreciation claimed by the assessee was disallowed alleging the arrangement as a camouflage. Hon'ble Court applying rationale of Vodafone case held that: "....in the absence of any material to pronounce on the genuineness of the transaction herein, the mere fact that what had been purchased had been leased out to the vendor or that vendor had undertaken

BRIJ RAJ SINGH RATHAUR,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-41, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Depreciation claimed by the assessee was disallowed alleging the arrangement as a camouflage. Hon'ble Court applying rationale of Vodafone case held that: "....in the absence of any material to pronounce on the genuineness of the transaction herein, the mere fact that what had been purchased had been leased out to the vendor or that vendor had undertaken