M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145, which concerns are correct and complete account but which, in the opinion of the officer, does not disclose the true and proper income.” 35. Further at page number 53 the honourable Supreme Court further held that:- “it is not only the right but the duty of the assessing officer to consider whether or not the books disclose

HEMLA EMBROIDERY MILLS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishihemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Dcit, Ltd., Circle-I, Vs. 14/6, Mathura Road, Faridabad Faridabad Pan:Aaach4302B Dcit, (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation @5%. However same was disallowed by the ld AO applying provision of section 69C of the Act stating that

ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

depreciation requires to be confirmed and relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The submission made by the Ld. AR related to CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19/06/2019 are very much relevant in the present appeal before us. Before that Section

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

depreciation on such software license was to be claimed @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the Appellant. 12. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making a disallowance of notional expenditure of Rs. 16,90,576 per provisions of section 14A of the Act read with rule

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

depreciation on such software license was to be claimed @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the Appellant. 12. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making a disallowance of notional expenditure of Rs. 16,90,576 per provisions of section 14A of the Act read with rule

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S REFAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P) LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

Section 69C of the Act was not sustainable and, accordingly, by an order dated 26th August, 2014, rejected the appeals preferred by the Revenue. The Tribunal also agreed with the decision of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of 100% disallowance of expenditure and depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S REFAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P) LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

Section 69C of the Act was not sustainable and, accordingly, by an order dated 26th August, 2014, rejected the appeals preferred by the Revenue. The Tribunal also agreed with the decision of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of 100% disallowance of expenditure and depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S REFAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P) LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

Section 69C of the Act was not sustainable and, accordingly, by an order dated 26th August, 2014, rejected the appeals preferred by the Revenue. The Tribunal also agreed with the decision of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of 100% disallowance of expenditure and depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S REFAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P) LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

Section 69C of the Act was not sustainable and, accordingly, by an order dated 26th August, 2014, rejected the appeals preferred by the Revenue. The Tribunal also agreed with the decision of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of 100% disallowance of expenditure and depreciation

ALANICE COMPUTER SERVICES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktiit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

depreciation allowance' in section 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., 'escaped assessment...." 9. Further, it is hereby submitted that the provisions of sec. 68 of the Act are deeming provisions and it is a settled low that deeming provisions are to be construed strictly. Therefore

M/S VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

69C which is not at all applicable as the assessee explained the increased rent with the documentary evidences. The CIT(A) also while modifying the order of the Assessing Officer applied Section 37(1), which is not at all applicable when there is a rent agreement between the third party. While computing the rent payable the Assessing Officer failed

VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

69C which is not at all applicable as the assessee explained the increased rent with the documentary evidences. The CIT(A) also while modifying the order of the Assessing Officer applied Section 37(1), which is not at all applicable when there is a rent agreement between the third party. While computing the rent payable the Assessing Officer failed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNKAN TRAVELS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee in C

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

69C of the I.T. Act. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in accepting the transaction made in cash by the assessee company regarding sale and purchase. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,81,596/- made

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

depreciation. 1. You have raised unsecured loans during the year as per point no- 31(a) of your Tax Audit report. In respect of each unsecured loan raised furnish the following 1. 1. Confirmation as well as ITR and bank statement (for FY 2016-17) of the loan providers. 2. Copy of account of these loan providers in your books

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1), NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL JAIN, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

69C and 69D, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted in this case That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the learned Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited in the bank by the appellant is taxable as income under section

SADHANA PHOSPHATES & CHEMICAL LIMITED. vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8, & ANR.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Depreciation on Plant and Machinery. B. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in relying upon one statement of Mr. Ravi Chandran, Proprietor of M/s M.R. Consultants recorded during the Survey dated 21.01.2000 and didn't consider his second statement dated 25.05.2010 recorded during Remand Proceedings This

DCIT, NAJIBABAD vs. DR. SIRISH KUMAR, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Sirish Kumar, Circle – Najibabad, Prop. Shree Hospital, Kiratpur Najibabad Road, Bijnor. Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.65/Del/2016 [In Ita No.4578/Del/2015] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sirish Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Prop. Shree Hospital, Circle – Najibabad, Kiratpur Road, Bijnor. Najibabad Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Ca

depreciation of Rs 38,610/-, Staff salary expenses of Rs 3,18,150/-, CT Scan expenses of Rs 78,016/-, Ultra sound & X-ray consumable of Rs 1,44,975/-, Washing expenses , Pathology expenses and Motor Cycle expenses of Rs 1,08,263/-, Staff welfare expenses of Rs 7,286/-, Mobile & telephone expenses of Rs 7,415/-, Generator expenses

M/S. GODWIN RESORT & HOTEL PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation and business loss. In support, he strongly relied upon the CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19.06.2019 wherein CBDT has clarified that prior to Assessment Year 2017-18 6 I.T.A. No.1841/DEL/2016 income referred to in Section 115 BBE(1) is allowed to be set off from the losses coming from the earlier year or during the year prior