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

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

b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders granting approval and sanction of schemes only on 22-4-2018 and 1-5-2018, hence, it was an impossibility for assessee companies

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

b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders granting approval and sanction of schemes only on 22-4-2018 and 1-5-2018, hence, it was an impossibility for assessee companies

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

b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders granting approval and sanction of schemes only on 22-4-2018 and 1-5-2018, hence, it was an impossibility for assessee companies

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

b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders granting approval and sanction of schemes only on 22-4-2018 and 1-5-2018, hence, it was an impossibility for assessee companies

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

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

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

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

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

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)

2) Adjusted total income referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the total income before giving effect to this Chapter as increased by— (i) deductions claimed, if any, under any section (other than section 80P) included in Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes"; (ii) deduction claimed, if any, under section 10AA

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

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

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