DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

depreciation on plant and machinery factory building etc. .Therefore auditor stated that in absence of any comparable market quotation profit margin of 10% on cost provided for transfer- of excise able goods for captive consumption and followed by assessee company for transfer of excisable goods to these eligible units was considered to workout fair market value of this transfer. Therefore

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

depreciation on plant and machinery factory building etc. .Therefore auditor stated that in absence of any comparable market quotation profit margin of 10% on cost provided for transfer- of excise able goods for captive consumption and followed by assessee company for transfer of excisable goods to these eligible units was considered to workout fair market value of this transfer. Therefore

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year, the assessee acted bona fide by claiming short term capital loss, in our view, is believable

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year, the assessee acted bona fide by claiming short term capital loss, in our view, is believable

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year, the assessee acted bona fide by claiming short term capital loss, in our view, is believable

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year, the assessee acted bona fide by claiming short term capital loss, in our view, is believable

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year, the assessee acted bona fide by claiming short term capital loss, in our view, is believable

PRAVEEN RANJAN SINHA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshpraveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Sa No. 57/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 399/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv Ms. Bhavya Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024

section 94(8) of the Income Tax Act and the amendment brought to the same by Finance Act 2022 which was categorically made effective only from 01.04.2023hence not applicable to the case of the appellant and which, therefore, on the contrary categorically established that the position taken by the appellant was unassailable as the same was indisputably in accordance

VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the issues raised in the captioned appeals are decided

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

94,890/- (Assessment Year 2011-12) and Rs.9,28,880/- (Assessment Year 2013-14) disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee in this regard submits that the assessee is one of the holding company of Dabur India Ltd. The assessee had acquired the membership of a health club namely M/s. Mayor Health Resorts and paid the subscription. The assessing officer

VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the issues raised in the captioned appeals are decided

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

94,890/- (Assessment Year 2011-12) and Rs.9,28,880/- (Assessment Year 2013-14) disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee in this regard submits that the assessee is one of the holding company of Dabur India Ltd. The assessee had acquired the membership of a health club namely M/s. Mayor Health Resorts and paid the subscription. The assessing officer

VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the issues raised in the captioned appeals are decided

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

94,890/- (Assessment Year 2011-12) and Rs.9,28,880/- (Assessment Year 2013-14) disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee in this regard submits that the assessee is one of the holding company of Dabur India Ltd. The assessee had acquired the membership of a health club namely M/s. Mayor Health Resorts and paid the subscription. The assessing officer

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

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

section 153 A of The Act. 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 13(i). That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of purchase of sandalwood oil to extent of Rs 54,94,24,290/- holding same to be bogus

HESPERA REALTY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar

94(7), was, even otherwise, not exempt and consequently, clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act had no application at the very threshold.” 3. The brief background facts of the case are as under: During the previous year relevant to assessment year 2015-16, pursuant to scheme of amalgamation duly approved by the Hon'ble High

PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

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

94,47,290/- and government acquisition amounting to Rs.4,51,66,708/- Page -23 volume Depreciation chart Under the intangible assets category , 2 of the enclosed to the Tax the assessee has computed paessee’s paper Audit Report depreciation at the rate of 25% on the book ‘Government Authorizations’ of Rs. 4,51,66,708/- added during the year, which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

7 of 22 unit was sold as going concern or as a slump sale and therefore, no part of consideration of `42.50 Crores was attributable to any particular asset including depreciable assets. The AO had not accepted this contention and held that Section 50 was applicable and he, therefore, computed short term capital gain at `36.89 Crores on the sale

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

7. As the counsel for the parties were ready to argue the matter at 2010:DHC:6300-DB appeals, we heard the counsel for both the parties at length on the aforesaid questions. 8. It is clear from the questions of law as formulated, the dispute, as to whether profits which have accrued to the assessee on the transfer

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

94,70,272 in accordance with the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC to the extent specified in sub-section (1B) of that section, in respect of export profits allowable while computing “book profits” in terms of clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

94,70,272 in accordance with the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC to the extent specified in sub-section (1B) of that section, in respect of export profits allowable while computing “book profits” in terms of clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB