ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) and 143(1) in disallowing a sum of Rs.12,82,40,760/- being Employees Contribution to PF and ESI, as the case of assessee is not covered by Supreme Court decision in checkmate services Private Limited vCIT [2022] 448 ITR 518. 6. Because the assessing officer has erred in making rectification

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallow the depreciation claimed on the block of assets by following the assessment order for the AY 2009-10. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the said assessment year as above, by following the order in the said appeal, this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. Assessee’s appeal no. 4736/Del/2017 34. Now we will

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallow the depreciation claimed on the block of assets by following the assessment order for the AY 2009-10. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the said assessment year as above, by following the order in the said appeal, this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. Assessee’s appeal no. 4736/Del/2017 34. Now we will

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallow the depreciation claimed on the block of assets by following the assessment order for the AY 2009-10. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the said assessment year as above, by following the order in the said appeal, this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. Assessee’s appeal no. 4736/Del/2017 34. Now we will

PERITUS EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

disallowed the similar amount and raise the demand. 10. Aggrieved with the above, assessee filed application u/s 154 of the Act for rectification

DCIT, GURGAON vs. SH. CHANCHAL SINGH DHEK, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit Vs. Sh. Chanchal Singh Dhek Circle -1 (1) Prop. M/S. Great Roadways Gurgaon Anaj Mandi Chowk, Gurgaon Pan No. Aaopd6087G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s. 40 (a) (ia) for non- deduction of tax from lorry hire charges. We find the AO passed the order u/s. 154 on 29.03.2010 wherein he made addition of Rs.1,66,43,122/- u/s. 40 (a) (ia) of the IT Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the rectification

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

disallowed, being capital in nature. 29. A reading of the notice under Section 154 of the Act and the reassessment notice dated 11th May 2009 shows that there is absolutely no material difference on the issues sought to be considered under these notices, except the fact that while in the proceedings under Section 154, the notice is based

M/S. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA (HUF),DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year:

u/s 154 of the Act and as such the disallowance as made in the order under appeal is unlawful. Section 154 of the Income-tax Act provides for rectification

MORGAN VENTURES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 8238/Del/2019 [A.Y 2014-15]

rectification u/s 154 of the Income tax Act. With reference to disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income

SANGAY CHODEN BHUTIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 70(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHΜΑΝ (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

rectification and create demand u/s 154 of the Act disallowing any expenditure claimed on flimsy or untenable grounds and for the reason

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act thereby after rectifying the error he assessed income at Rs.4591,24,91,796/-. 5. Pertinently, during the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.121,82,25,605/- u/s 43B of the Act. In respect of PLA balance on excise duty on vehicles, PLA balance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act thereby after rectifying the error he assessed income at Rs.4591,24,91,796/-. 5. Pertinently, during the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.121,82,25,605/- u/s 43B of the Act. In respect of PLA balance on excise duty on vehicles, PLA balance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GULSHAN CHEMICALS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1523/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1524/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs M/S Gulshan Chemicals Ltd., Circle-10(2), E-12, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg4002H

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee company. Since, the assessee has filed incorrect particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately.” 8. The rectification order u/s 154

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GULSHAN CHEMICALS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1523/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1524/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs M/S Gulshan Chemicals Ltd., Circle-10(2), E-12, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg4002H

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee company. Since, the assessee has filed incorrect particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately.” 8. The rectification order u/s 154

SONIA SHARMA,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(4), NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Sonia Sharma, Vs Ito, A-132, Sector-40, Noida, Gautam Ward-5(3)(4), Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301. Noida. Pan-Bosps3283Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Ca & Ms. Sonia Sharma (Assessee In Person) Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.04.2023

154 and claimed relief u/s 90/91 of Rs.330400.00 DTAA. The rectification processed dated 01.07.2022 and disallowed our claim on the ground

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

rectification applications u/s 154 shall also be duly considered. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 38. Ground Nos. 17 (a) & 17 (b) and Additional Ground No.23 & 24 are connected with each and assail the common issue and hence are considered together. These grounds are with respect to the tax treatment of the amount received on account of Carbon

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

rectification applications u/s 154 shall also be duly considered. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 38. Ground Nos. 17 (a) & 17 (b) and Additional Ground No.23 & 24 are connected with each and assail the common issue and hence are considered together. These grounds are with respect to the tax treatment of the amount received on account of Carbon

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LTU, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0828R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aditya Chhajed, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

u/s 154 of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. The submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under:- 1. “This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition