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

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of exemption under section 10(25)(ii) of the Income Tax act, 1961 (Act). 4. The relevant facts giving

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of exemption under section 10(25)(ii) of the Income Tax act, 1961 (Act). 4. The relevant facts giving

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (E) TRUST CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

25)(ii) completely and undisputedly. 3.3 The CPC vide order dated 07.06.2016 rejected the Assessee’s application filed u/s 154 of the Act, on the grounds stated below: “On verification, it is seen that there is no prima facie error in the order which you have sought to be rectified. Therefore, your application for rectification under section 154 is rejected

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (E) TRUST CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

25)(ii) completely and undisputedly. 3.3 The CPC vide order dated 07.06.2016 rejected the Assessee’s application filed u/s 154 of the Act, on the grounds stated below: “On verification, it is seen that there is no prima facie error in the order which you have sought to be rectified. Therefore, your application for rectification under section 154 is rejected

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

section 5 and the third proviso thereto: "5. This Act shall apply to every business of which any part of the profits made during the chargeable accounting period is Mr. Nikhil Sawhney chargeable to income-tax by virtue of the provisions of sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

section In the assessment order, the assessing officer proportionately allocated following expenses to the eligible 80IB(10) of the projects in ratio or sales and consequently proposed disallowance of deduction Rs.3,59,98,438 for all nine Act on account projects. However, considering that out of the 9 projects, the assessing officer had already disallowed the of proportionate entire claim

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

25. Section 27B (1) of the IA mandates that no insurer carrying on general insurance business shall "invest or keep invested any part of his assets otherwise than in any of the following approved investments." These 'approved investments are set out in clauses (a) to (j) there under. Section 27B (4) states that an insurer "shall not invest or keep

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

25. Section 27B (1) of the IA mandates that no insurer carrying on general insurance business shall "invest or keep invested any part of his assets otherwise than in any of the following approved investments." These 'approved investments are set out in clauses (a) to (j) there under. Section 27B (4) states that an insurer "shall not invest or keep

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

25 12.50 NHPC-8.18% - 16.11 8.055 PFC-8.18% - 32.39 16.195 Total of average value of investments yielding exempt income 381.46 (A) 0.5% of (A) 0.19073 Suo Moto disallowance made by the assessee 0.67037 In view of the above, it is submitted that the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 19.07 lacs under section 14A of the Act, computed as per clause

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

25. Section 27B (1) of the IA mandates that no insurer carrying on general insurance business shall "invest or keep invested any part of his assets otherwise than in any of the following approved investments." These 'approved investments are set out in clauses (a) to (j) there under. Section 27B (4) states that an insurer "shall not invest or keep

IECS LIMITED EMPLOYEE PF COVERED UNDER FPS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

disallowed to the appellant by CPC u/s 143(1). However, ld. CIT (A) was not convinced. He referred to the return filed by the assessee and held as under :- “5.1.2 Provisions of section 143(1) the return is processed based on appellant's to claim. Thus, in absence of any registration u/s 12 the system has correctly processed its return

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

25 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022 Poant Unit A.S. Packers (Unit- Purchase of 34510418 - 34510418 II II) product Poant Unit A.S. Packers Purchase of 34510418 22577293 11933125 II product Poant Unit N.S. Industries- Purchase of 6961986 - 6961986 II Poanta product Poant Unit N.S. Industries – Purchase of 28655811 - 28655811 II Unit-II product Sub Total Poanta Unit-II 223114568 22577293 200537275 Poanta Unit

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

10. So far as the ground relating to depreciation is concerned, the CIT (Appeals) took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI, (1993) 199 ITR 43 and held that in arriving at the real income of the trust, deduction for depreciation cannot be allowed if the capital expenditure incurred in acquiring the asset

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

10 Deduction claimed under Section 35DD: - .......................................................................... 11 Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act: - ..................................................................... 16 Commuted/discounted one-time lease rent: - ....................................................................... 25 Conclusion: - ............................................................................................................................ 33 2021:DHC:1941-DB ITA 213-215/2020 Page 2 of 33 Preface: - 1. The above-captioned appeals are directed against a common order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”] Pertinently

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

10 Deduction claimed under Section 35DD: - .......................................................................... 11 Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act: - ..................................................................... 16 Commuted/discounted one-time lease rent: - ....................................................................... 25 Conclusion: - ............................................................................................................................ 33 2021:DHC:1941-DB ITA 213-215/2020 Page 2 of 33 Preface: - 1. The above-captioned appeals are directed against a common order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”] Pertinently

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

10 Deduction claimed under Section 35DD: - .......................................................................... 11 Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act: - ..................................................................... 16 Commuted/discounted one-time lease rent: - ....................................................................... 25 Conclusion: - ............................................................................................................................ 33 2021:DHC:1941-DB ITA 213-215/2020 Page 2 of 33 Preface: - 1. The above-captioned appeals are directed against a common order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”] Pertinently

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

25. On appeal, following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 694 the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 45,49,293/- i.e. to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The assessee is aggrieved by the excess disallowance