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

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 has been satisfied in this case as the assessee

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

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 has been satisfied in this case as the assessee

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

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 has been satisfied in this case as the assessee

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

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 has been satisfied in this case as the assessee

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”).

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 has been satisfied in this case as the assessee

BSC C&C JV,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Bsc C&C Joint Venture, Vs. Acit, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Circle-62(1), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfb8115G Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2025

depreciation is made in the return, filing of Form 3AA is directory in nature. In our considered opinion, we hold that the decision of G M Knitting supra does not come to the rescue of the assessee herein as it is factually distinguishable as the assessee herein had not made a claim of deduction under section 80IA

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

80P of the Act, which is amongst a funiculus of sections under Chapter VI-A of the Act that provide for “deductions to be made in computing total income” of an Assessee; whilst, the present case concerned Section 10A of the Act, which was part of Chapter III of the Act that pertained to “income which do not form part

M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- II

80P of the Act, which is amongst a funiculus of sections under Chapter VI-A of the Act that provide for “deductions to be made in computing total income” of an Assessee; whilst, the present case concerned Section 10A of the Act, which was part of Chapter III of the Act that pertained to “income which do not form part

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

80P of the Act, which is amongst a funiculus of sections under Chapter VI-A of the Act that provide for “deductions to be made in computing total income” of an Assessee; whilst, the present case concerned Section 10A of the Act, which was part of Chapter III of the Act that pertained to “income which do not form part

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

80P of the Act, which is amongst a funiculus of sections under Chapter VI-A of the Act that provide for “deductions to be made in computing total income” of an Assessee; whilst, the present case concerned Section 10A of the Act, which was part of Chapter III of the Act that pertained to “income which do not form part

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

80P of the Act, which is amongst a funiculus of sections under Chapter VI-A of the Act that provide for “deductions to be made in computing total income” of an Assessee; whilst, the present case concerned Section 10A of the Act, which was part of Chapter III of the Act that pertained to “income which do not form part

M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II

80P of the Act, which is amongst a funiculus of sections under Chapter VI-A of the Act that provide for “deductions to be made in computing total income” of an Assessee; whilst, the present case concerned Section 10A of the Act, which was part of Chapter III of the Act that pertained to “income which do not form part

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

80P(2)(d) of the Act and, therefore, has to be disallowed under Section 14A. 5. The assessee succeeded in the first appeal and before the tribunal. We may notice that in the first appeal, the assessee had raised several contentions on merits as to the quantum of disallowance of the expenditure under the head “interest” and had pointed

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

80P(2)(d) of the Act and, therefore, has to be disallowed under Section 14A. 5. The assessee succeeded in the first appeal and before the tribunal. We may notice that in the first appeal, the assessee had raised several contentions on merits as to the quantum of disallowance of the expenditure under the head “interest” and had pointed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE VAISH CO-OPERATIVE ADARSH BANK LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merits is

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

80P is to be amended to give effect to the above proposal. It is also proposed to amend section 8 The Satara District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 2(24) to provide that profits and gains of business of banking (Including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co- operative society with its members shall be included in the definition

DIVYA CREATION,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Divya Creation, Vs. Pr. Cit, Plot No. 97, Nsez, Noida Aayakar Bhawan, A2 D- Block, Sector 24, Noida Pan :Aadfd4879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

80P) included in Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes"; (ii) deduction claimed, if any, under section 10AA; and (iii) deduction claimed, if any, under section 35AD as reduced by the amount of depreciation

ACIT CIRCLE-54(1), NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

depreciation to 5%. I.T.A. No. 3555/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Revenue) a. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT (A) has erred in not examining the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Assessing Officer, as the assessee had failed to furnish any cogent explanation in support

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-32(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

depreciation to 5%. I.T.A. No. 3555/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Revenue) a. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT (A) has erred in not examining the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Assessing Officer, as the assessee had failed to furnish any cogent explanation in support