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

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

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

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

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

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

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

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

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

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

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

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

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

2,00,10,879/- on account of late filling of income tax return. He further submitted that the CIT (A) has also erred on facts and in law for not considering the timely filling of Audit Report us 80IC in form 10CCB under rule 18BBB and tax audit report in form 3CB/CD us 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 from

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)

2 without claiming the same in the return. Therefore the additional claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act may kindly be allowed to the assessee. 6. On careful consideration of above submission, first of all, from the orders of the authorities below we note that the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) raised additional ground no. 5 seeking allowability

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”).

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011- 12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between ‘stock-in-trade' and ‘investment' and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

M/S. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between ‘stock-in-trade' and ‘investment' and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares