PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

65,932/-. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed; the CIT (A) deleted the penalty. The revenue appealed to the ITAT, which on 19.08.2015, confirmed the order of the CIT (A). Proceedings and Arguments before the CIT(A) and ITAT 5. The assessee had contended that the penalty order was untenable because there was no difference between the income returned pursuant to notice

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

65,932/-. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed; the CIT (A) deleted the penalty. The revenue appealed to the ITAT, which on 19.08.2015, confirmed the order of the CIT (A). Proceedings and Arguments before the CIT(A) and ITAT 5. The assessee had contended that the penalty order was untenable because there was no difference between the income returned pursuant to notice

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

65,932/-. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed; the CIT (A) deleted the penalty. The revenue appealed to the ITAT, which on 19.08.2015, confirmed the order of the CIT (A). Proceedings and Arguments before the CIT(A) and ITAT 5. The assessee had contended that the penalty order was untenable because there was no difference between the income returned pursuant to notice

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

65,282/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed. The penalty was imposed with respect to the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Depreciation Rs.2268,05,00,000/- disallowed (ii) Disallowance of 1,00,000/- assets written off (iii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on the following items of income:- Rs.13,15,00,00/- 1. Interest from others Rs.147

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

65,282/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed. The penalty was imposed with respect to the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Depreciation Rs.2268,05,00,000/- disallowed (ii) Disallowance of 1,00,000/- assets written off (iii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on the following items of income:- Rs.13,15,00,00/- 1. Interest from others Rs.147

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

65,282/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed. The penalty was imposed with respect to the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Depreciation Rs.2268,05,00,000/- disallowed (ii) Disallowance of 1,00,000/- assets written off (iii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on the following items of income:- Rs.13,15,00,00/- 1. Interest from others Rs.147

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

65,282/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed. The penalty was imposed with respect to the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Depreciation Rs.2268,05,00,000/- disallowed (ii) Disallowance of 1,00,000/- assets written off (iii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on the following items of income:- Rs.13,15,00,00/- 1. Interest from others Rs.147

PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, license or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial or any other business or commercial right of similar nature has to be "intangible asset". The nature of these rights mentioned clearly spell-out an element of exclusivity which enures to the assessee

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 43(1) defining the actual cost for the purpose of bloc of assets, he observed that it was, therefore, necessary to look into whether the main purpose of the transfer of assets directly or indirectly to the assessee was for the reduction of liability to Income tax (by claiming depreciation with reference to an enhanced cost

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 43(1) defining the actual cost for the purpose of bloc of assets, he observed that it was, therefore, necessary to look into whether the main purpose of the transfer of assets directly or indirectly to the assessee was for the reduction of liability to Income tax (by claiming depreciation with reference to an enhanced cost

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 43(1) defining the actual cost for the purpose of bloc of assets, he observed that it was, therefore, necessary to look into whether the main purpose of the transfer of assets directly or indirectly to the assessee was for the reduction of liability to Income tax (by claiming depreciation with reference to an enhanced cost

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 43(1) defining the actual cost for the purpose of bloc of assets, he observed that it was, therefore, necessary to look into whether the main purpose of the transfer of assets directly or indirectly to the assessee was for the reduction of liability to Income tax (by claiming depreciation with reference to an enhanced cost

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

65 (P&H). In this case, the disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with rule 8D. The assessee challenged the same before the Hon’ble High Court. Their Lordships observed in para 38 that “Assessing Officer cannot be faulted for not being satisfied with the claim of the assessee”. Thereafter, the Lordships observed in para

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. PRATHMA BANK, MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4090/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Prathma Bank, Tax, Circle-1, Ramganga Vihar, Moradabad Moradabad (U.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.04.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Bareilly.

65,000/- and accepted the short term capital gain disclosed by the assessee at Rs.24,95,386/-. 10. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submission which is reproduced verbatim as under: “It is respectfully submitted that in the above mentioned case, there are as many as 12 grounds of appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 25th May, 2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as „ITAT‟) whereby it allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02. The present appeal against the impugned ITA No. 164/2008 Page 2 of 13 order, however, relates

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

65,425/-. In response to notice\nissued u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act. appellant filed his return showing income\nof Rs. 98,25,914/-. Assessment order u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act was passed\nagain at Rs, 1,04.65.425/- without doing any verification with regard to income\nincreased by CPC while passing order u/s 143(1) of Income

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)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules

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)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules