ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

10. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming imposition of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Jain submitted that the assessing officer in his order has alleged that appellant has violated the provision of Section 13

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

10. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming imposition of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Jain submitted that the assessing officer in his order has alleged that appellant has violated the provision of Section 13

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

10. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming imposition of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Jain submitted that the assessing officer in his order has alleged that appellant has violated the provision of Section 13

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

10. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming imposition of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Jain submitted that the assessing officer in his order has alleged that appellant has violated the provision of Section 13

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

10. The Learned PCIT had invoked Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Act by stating that the Assessee had committed specified violation thereon. The provisions of Section 12AB(4) of the Act together with its Explanation are already reproduced hereinabove. On a plain and harmonious reading of Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 12AB

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMAXE BUILDHOME (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of deduction claimed under sec. 80IB(10) in Rs. Omaxe City, Lucknow 13,54,30,598 Omaxe City, Jaipur 8,39,27,677 Omaxe City, Palwal 46,86,6233 By holding that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of profits derived from that part of housing projects which consists of unbuilt housing sites cannot be allowed

NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishintt Data Global Delivery Vs. Dcit, Services Ltd, Circle-13(1), No. 17, South End Road, New Delhi Bangalore Pan: Aabck7777J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10 A of the income tax act in the return of income With respect to 9 different units of the assessee aggregating to INR 13 28 795 619/–. The claim of the assessee was examined by the assessing officer, wherein, he held that the disallowance

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5) as this was not a case of deposit of funds of the trust in unauthorised modes. On the contrary, the amount was utilised for the purpose the educational object and no benefit was derived by the society or their trustees or any other interested party. In this view of the matter

CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,HISSAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

disallowed by ld. AO 8. However, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) amounting to Rs 25,74,64,090/-. 9. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before Your Honours. No condition of filing of return of income to claim the exemption

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow the interest on mere suspicion and surmises particularly when the Appellant Trust had duly proved the source of loans/deposits.. 10.2.6. In my considered opinion, there was absolutely no contravention of provisions of section 13(3) of the I.T. Act as alleged by the AO. Therefore, there was no justification to make disallowance/addition of Rs.20,50,491/- which

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

10)/801C/80IE of the Act 64,34,78,261 Ageing of Receivables 5,72,619 Other additions/disallowances Addition w.r.t. to expenditure incurred on in-house 12,01,42,780 scientific research under section 35(2AB) of the Act Disallowance w.r.t. deduction claimed under section 638,13

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

13(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to avail exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. He, therefore taxed the assessee as AOP and computed the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.1,93,93,48,991/- including therein addition of Rs. 31,20,000/- as income from house property and disallowance

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

13 of 59 (supra.), held that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, if any, was to be restricted to the amount(s) remaining payable as on the last day of the relevant previous year. Relevant findings of the Tribunal in this regard are reproduced as under: 10

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

disallowance u/s 13(2)(e) of the Act of Rs. 69,00,000/-. 13. Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC Delhi and filed a detailed submissions which are reproduced in the impugned 7 order. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and findings in the assessment order he proceeded to sustain the addition made

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

13,315 - Rs. 9,72,000 = Rs. 4,41,315) does attract TDS under section 194C. The assessee claimed TDS of only Rs. 8,826 on this amount, whereas Rs. 22,000+ should have been deducted (assuming 10% contractor rate + surcharge). The proportionate disallowance