IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

depreciation) of Rs.3,51,250/-. The AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In response, the assessee had given the following explanation: “Entitlement for deduction of profits u/s 80IC: 1. Activities of the company are covered under point 13 of Part C of the Fourteenth Schedule as mentioned in Sub- Section 2

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

depreciation) of Rs.3,51,250/-. The AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In response, the assessee had given the following explanation: “Entitlement for deduction of profits u/s 80IC: 1. Activities of the company are covered under point 13 of Part C of the Fourteenth Schedule as mentioned in Sub- Section 2

ITO, WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIJAY GUPTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

b) Such of those units which have commenced production after 7.1.2003 and carried out substantial expansion prior to 1.4.2012, would also be entitled to benefit of deduction at different rated of percentage stipulated under Section 80-IC. (c) Substantial expansion cannot be confined to one expansion. As long as requirement of Section 80-IC(8)(ix) is met, there

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

b) before the special auditor (as distinguishably established by the special auditors) and (c) before the assessing officer who passed the assessment order u/s 143(3). - It is seen from the records that in the present assessment year under appeal there was no special audit, thus I do not find that the appellant was to produce books before any Special

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SUBASH CHANDER SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

b) before the special auditor (as distinguishably established by the special auditors) and (c) before the assessing officer who passed the assessment order u/s 143(3). - It is seen from the records that in the present assessment year under appeal there was no special audit, thus I do not find that the appellant was to produce books before any Special

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDRA SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

b) before the special auditor (as distinguishably established by the special auditors) and (c) before the assessing officer who passed the assessment order u/s 143(3). - It is seen from the records that in the present assessment year under appeal there was no special audit, thus I do not find that the appellant was to produce books before any Special

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

b. In respect of processed Kathha (Catechu), by confirming valuation done by assessing officer and upholding mark up of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 manufacturing expenses and profit rate @ 37.85% and 10% respectively. c. In respect of processed Cardamom (Elaichi), by confirming valuation done

CANADIAN SPECIALITY VINYLS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 63(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Canadian Specialty Vinyls Ito Ward-63(4), Delhi 110055 49, Rani Janshi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 Vs. Pan Aagfc 0200 J

B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Canadian Specialty Vinyls ITO Ward-63(4), Delhi 110055 49, Rani Janshi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 vs. PAN AAGFC 0200 J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shaantanu Jain, Adv. For Revenue : Ms. Maimum Alam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing

JCIT SPL. RANGE-12, NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANTA INDUSTRIES, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

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

depreciation. The AO has also examined and found that the assessee has purchased plant & machinery from the following parties: S. No Name and address of the Firm/Shop Bill No. and date Amount of bill 1. M/s Rahul Enterprises Bill No. 132 dated 05.01.2010 4,74,300/- 2. M / s Rahul Enterprises Bill No. 139 dated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

b) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in loading of manufacturing expenses at the estimated rate of 37.85% and charging of profit margin @ 10% on the amount of goods called Kathha (Catechu) which gets processed through job worker and not allowing the deduction u/s 801B/801C in this regard. (c) Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

b) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in loading of manufacturing expenses at the estimated rate of 37.85% and charging of profit margin @ 10% on the amount of goods called Kathha (Catechu) which gets processed through job worker and not allowing the deduction u/s 801B/801C in this regard. (c) Ld. CIT(A) has erred

RALLISON ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

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

section 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Manpura (Baddi) unit by disallowing the following:- a. The learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Rs. 29,45,752J- by considering the stock lying at various branches amounting to Rs. 1,59,48,849/- as overvalued which has actually been valued at cost price. b. The learned

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty from

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty from

BAGRRYS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

B. pages 189 to 217 16 I.T.A. No.3785/DEL/2018 filed- Details of eligible unit i.e. Unit- II Baddi, product manufactured, initial year, rate of deduction u/s 80lC were fully explained- Audit report in the FORM 10CCB was submitted in respect of the deduction u/s 80 lC- Kind reference invited to page 192 column 28 whereby related party transactions disclosed including branch

C & S ELECTRIC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the revenue's appeal stands dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

B': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2622/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 2623/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No. 7981/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 C & S Electric Limited 222, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III, New Delhi PAN: AAACC0909K (Appellant) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. C & S ELECTRIC LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No. 2622/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 2623/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7981/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 C & S Electric Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 222, Okhla Industrial Estate Income Tax, Phase-Iii, New Delhi Vs. Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi Pan: Aaacc0909K (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 2532/Del/2018, A.Y.2013-14 Ita No. 2533/Del/2018, A.Y.2014-15 Ita No. 8274/Del/2018, A.Y.2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of C & S Electric Limited Income Tax, (Formerly Controls & Circle-1, Ltu, Vs. Switchgear Co. Ltd.) New Delhi 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacc0909K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Bhalla, Ca Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025 Order Per Bench Cross Appeal By The Assessee & Revenue Containing Common Facts Were Heard Together Being Inter-Connected With Each Other & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. Ita No.2532, 2533 & 8274/Del/2018 C & S Electric Ltd. 2. These Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against Orders Dated 10.01.18 & 25.09.2018 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2622/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 2623/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No. 7981/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 C & S Electric Limited Deputy Commissioner of 222, Okhla Industrial Estate Income Tax, Phase-III, New Delhi Vs. Circle-1, LTU, New Delhi PAN: AAACC0909K