M/S JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LIMITED GURGAON vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

section 43A(1). All allowances including development rebate or depreciation allowance or the other types of deductions referred to in the sub-section

M/S JAGAJIT INDUSTRIES LTD vs. DY. COMMR OF I.T.

The appeal is disposed of

section 43A(1). All allowances including development rebate or depreciation allowance or the other types of deductions referred to in the sub-section

JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD vs. DY.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL-VI

The appeal is disposed of

section 43A(1). All allowances including development rebate or depreciation allowance or the other types of deductions referred to in the sub-section

JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DY.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL-VI

The appeal is disposed of

section 43A(1). All allowances including development rebate or depreciation allowance or the other types of deductions referred to in the sub-section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.E.I. INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.3

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

depreciation of Rs.3,90,96,306/- has erred in not following the orders of her predecessor in office. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that in view of section 43(1) read with Explanation 8 thereto and section 43A

M/S. KEI INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.3

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

depreciation of Rs.3,90,96,306/- has erred in not following the orders of her predecessor in office. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that in view of section 43(1) read with Explanation 8 thereto and section 43A

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing deduction u/s 80-IA at Rs.112,76,27,767/- as against at Rs 65,93,67,681/- allowed by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing deduction u/s 80-IA at Rs.112,76,27,767/- as against at Rs 65,93,67,681/- allowed by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing deduction u/s 80-IA at Rs.112,76,27,767/- as against at Rs 65,93,67,681/- allowed by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing deduction u/s 80-IA at Rs.112,76,27,767/- as against at Rs 65,93,67,681/- allowed by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing deduction u/s 80-IA at Rs.112,76,27,767/- as against at Rs 65,93,67,681/- allowed by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing deduction u/s 80-IA at Rs.112,76,27,767/- as against at Rs 65,93,67,681/- allowed by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing deduction u/s 80-IA at Rs.112,76,27,767/- as against at Rs 65,93,67,681/- allowed by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing deduction u/s 80-IA at Rs.112,76,27,767/- as against at Rs 65,93,67,681/- allowed by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/- on investment made in windmill; disallowance of Rs. 1,05,63,232/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 59,58,893/- for non-deduction of TDS in AY 2014-15. 7. We take up the assessee’s appeal first. 8. Ground No. 1 in both the years is of general nature not requiring

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/- on investment made in windmill; disallowance of Rs. 1,05,63,232/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 59,58,893/- for non-deduction of TDS in AY 2014-15. 7. We take up the assessee’s appeal first. 8. Ground No. 1 in both the years is of general nature not requiring

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/- on investment made in windmill; disallowance of Rs. 1,05,63,232/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 59,58,893/- for non-deduction of TDS in AY 2014-15. 7. We take up the assessee’s appeal first. 8. Ground No. 1 in both the years is of general nature not requiring

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/- on investment made in windmill; disallowance of Rs. 1,05,63,232/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 59,58,893/- for non-deduction of TDS in AY 2014-15. 7. We take up the assessee’s appeal first. 8. Ground No. 1 in both the years is of general nature not requiring