JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

80A (5) of the Act does not bar the assessee from revising the computation for deduction made under the provision. 43. It was submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dismissing the department appeal has also discussed the order in the case of Influence Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 55 Taxman.com 192 (Delhi) and Principal Commissioner of Income

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

depreciation subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 72 and sub-Section (3) of Section 73 of the Act. Sections 30, 31 and 32 (A) to 35(E) provide for rebates, allowances and deductions under various heads. Section 36 provides for certain “other deductions” specified therein while, computing the income referred to in Section 28. Section

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

80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is\nallowed

Depreciation as per Income Tax Act\n(1,223,292,202)\n(814,871,495) (408,420,707)\nLess: Gratuity paid during the year\n(3,035,806)\n(2,655,227)\n(380,579)\nLess: Water cess liability paid during the year-u/s 43B\n(307,709)\n(307,709)\nLess: Water cess written back during the year

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

depreciation. It is\npertinent to note that the aforementioned revised returns were\nfiled within the extended timeline provided by CBDT Circular dated\n30.09.2020, which allowed filing of revised returns for AY 2019-20\nup to 30.11.2020 under Section 139(5) of the Act.\n\n3.\nOn 26.11.2020, the CPC issued an intimation under Section\n143(1) of the Act proposing

JAQUAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which

M/S. HIMALYA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

5. Steam Generating Boiler, 19,48,518 Tanks, etc. (Indian machinery installed in parts up to July, 2008) Total : 4,78,71,741 S. No. Machine Heads Cost (Rs.) FY 2007-08 FrigoscandiaGyrostackSpiral 1. 6,84,67,101 Freezer, Multivac tray packing machine, Custom made incline conveyor belt, Custom made 89 long portable stainless steel incline conveyor, Foot conveyor, Stem

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

5. Steam Generating Boiler, 19,48,518 Tanks, etc. (Indian machinery installed in parts up to July, 2008) Total : 4,78,71,741 S. No. Machine Heads Cost (Rs.) FY 2007-08 FrigoscandiaGyrostackSpiral 1. 6,84,67,101 Freezer, Multivac tray packing machine, Custom made incline conveyor belt, Custom made 89 long portable stainless steel incline conveyor, Foot conveyor, Stem

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

5. Steam Generating Boiler, 19,48,518 Tanks, etc. (Indian machinery installed in parts up to July, 2008) Total : 4,78,71,741 S. No. Machine Heads Cost (Rs.) FY 2007-08 FrigoscandiaGyrostackSpiral 1. 6,84,67,101 Freezer, Multivac tray packing machine, Custom made incline conveyor belt, Custom made 89 long portable stainless steel incline conveyor, Foot conveyor, Stem

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation and losses of the unit, the income from which was not eligible for deduction under Section 10A cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under Section 10A. Referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) it was held as under: - “2. Section

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation and losses of the unit, the income from which was not eligible for deduction under Section 10A cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under Section 10A. Referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) it was held as under: - “2. Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -II vs. KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

5) of section 80-IA or for that mailer akin to sub-section (6) of section 80-I has not been introduced by the Legislature when it enacted section 10B. The fact that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward to a subsequent year does not militate against the entitlement of the assessee to set-off a loss which is sustained

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate while computing the total income on the basis that the total income spoken of by sub-section (1) means commercial profits.” 27. It was accordingly observed that on proper construction of Section 80E(1) full effect has to be give to the word „such profits‟ and this was not possible without computing the income