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 u/s 80IB (10) in respect of following plotted colony termed as city :- 1 Omaxe City, Sonepat 2 Om axe City, Rohtak 3 Omaxe City. Lucknow 4. Omaxe CiIY. Jaipur 5. Omaxe Ciry, Palwal 6. Omaxe Parkwood-Il. Chakkan Baddi 7. Omaxe City-II Mangaliya. Indore 8. Omaxe City. Mayakheri, Indore 9. PDA Omaxe City, Patiala The assessing

AVAYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 466/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 202, Platina, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. Circle-1(1), C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla New Delhi Complex, Bandra(E), Mumabi, Maharashtra-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3592N Assessee By : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2021

disallowed the ‘cess’ paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change in the provisions of Section 10(4) of the old Act and Section 40(a)(ii

RAM SARAN DAS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: -------] Ram Saran Das Kishori Lal Commissioner Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, (Exemption), Room No.24.05, E-2 Block, 24Th Floor, Civic Centre, A-27, Friends Colony East, Vs New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaatr0783P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. Shri Arpit Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.11.2025

10 and 11 it was contended that provisions of section 12AB(4) of the Act, which had been introduced by Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2022 could not be invoked for cancellation of registration with retrospective effect. Reliance was placed on CBDT Circular No.11/2022, decision in Centre for Policy Research vs PCIT: WP(C) 11270/2023, interim order dated

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4 companies of the group was provided, as follows: 5. While filing the return of income on 21.03.2013 for AY 12-13, the appellant included the additional business income Rs 1,95,47,000 that was claimed as part of the surrendered income of Rs 10 crores. While passing the assessment order, the AO made additions

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4 companies of the group was provided, as follows: 5. While filing the return of income on 21.03.2013 for AY 12-13, the appellant included the additional business income Rs 1,95,47,000 that was claimed as part of the surrendered income of Rs 10 crores. While passing the assessment order, the AO made additions

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4 companies of the group was provided, as follows: 5. While filing the return of income on 21.03.2013 for AY 12-13, the appellant included the additional business income Rs 1,95,47,000 that was claimed as part of the surrendered income of Rs 10 crores. While passing the assessment order, the AO made additions

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4 companies of the group was provided, as follows: 5. While filing the return of income on 21.03.2013 for AY 12-13, the appellant included the additional business income Rs 1,95,47,000 that was claimed as part of the surrendered income of Rs 10 crores. While passing the assessment order, the AO made additions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4 companies of the group was provided, as follows: 5. While filing the return of income on 21.03.2013 for AY 12-13, the appellant included the additional business income Rs 1,95,47,000 that was claimed as part of the surrendered income of Rs 10 crores. While passing the assessment order, the AO made additions

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about the inherent implausibility of excluding

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about the inherent implausibility of excluding

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about the inherent implausibility of excluding

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1), and the order,\ndirection or decree, by whatever name called, holding that such non-\ncompliance has occurred, has either not been disputed or has attained finality,\nthen, the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may, by an order in writing,\ncancel the registration of such trust or institution:\nProvided that the registration shall

M/S R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2011-12]

disallowance of legal and professional fee of Rs. 1,93,250 and foreign taxes of Rs 51,384/-. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged into the business of software development and IT enables services, primarily export sales. 4. During the year under consideration, the assessee has declared total interest

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

10 Reimbursement of expenses received 1,886,087 3 Motherson Sumi Systems Limited vs. DCIT The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) in the draft assessment order 3.2 proposed an addition of Rs. 56,13,895/- on account of disallowance of exemption under section 10B of the Act with respect to miscellaneous incomes/other incomes/scrap sales and relying on the decision

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]

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued ignoring the first proviso to section 148 which provides that notice under section 148 shall not be issued

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

4[Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section 115JB.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, "equity oriented fund" means a fund— (i) where the investible funds are invested by way of equity shares in domestic companies

M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.2,47,75,170/- and added the same back to the assessee’s total income. 3. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) examining in detail the facts and submissions of the appellant, found that the appellant is not eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

10 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Rs.41,55,067/-. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed.” (ii) M/S Jhs Svendgaard Laboratories vs DCIT Cc (ii) (ii) (ii) M/S Jhs Svendgaard Laboratories vs DCIT Cc M/S Jhs Svendgaard Laboratories vs DCIT Cc-31, New Delhi Dated M/S Jhs Svendgaard Laboratories vs DCIT Cc 31, New Delhi