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. 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)

Section 80IB (10). As I have held that these housing project is separate entities, the commercial area is not part of such eligible housing project violation of condition contained in clause (d) will not come in the way of allowing deduction u/s 80IB (10). Considering all the facts & circumstances of the case & Judicial pronouncements, I hereby allow the deduction

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

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)

5 defines scheme of the total income as we have set out hereinbefore. …… 13. In our opinion, in the context of our present expression the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court are relevant to the provisions with which we are faced. It appears to us that clause (27) of section 10 excludes only "any income derived from business of livestock

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

10(34)) • Some administrative expense must have been incurred in • holding/managing the dividend-yielding shares A proportionate disallowance of Rs. 5 lakh (20% of dividend) is • Revenue's Legal Arguments-While acknowledging CIT(A)'s correct II. analysis of Section

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

10(34)) • Some administrative expense must have been incurred in • holding/managing the dividend-yielding shares A proportionate disallowance of Rs. 5 lakh (20% of dividend) is • Revenue's Legal Arguments-While acknowledging CIT(A)'s correct II. analysis of Section

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

10(34)) • Some administrative expense must have been incurred in • holding/managing the dividend-yielding shares A proportionate disallowance of Rs. 5 lakh (20% of dividend) is • Revenue's Legal Arguments-While acknowledging CIT(A)'s correct II. analysis of Section

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]

section 139(4C)(e) of the Act, as the assessee had failed to file its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which was mandatory for claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and therefore the exemption claimed u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act was not allowable. The AO, thereafter, disallowed the exemption of Rs.25

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

10(38) which is applicable to LTCG. The Id. A.O. held that the assessee is deriving income from General Insurance Business and also from other business. Therefore, the first category of Income is governed by section 44 of the Income Tax Act whereas second category is covered under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The same was held

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

disallowance of Rs. 3,16,82,836/- being provision made for standard assets. 5. That on facts and in law the order of Assessment u/s 143(3) passed by the AO is bad in law and void ab initio.” 5. Heard and perused the record. IN REGARD TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE : ITA 1952/Del/2018 6. As regards Ground

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

disallowance of Rs. 3,16,82,836/- being provision made for standard assets. 5. That on facts and in law the order of Assessment u/s 143(3) passed by the AO is bad in law and void ab initio.” 5. Heard and perused the record. IN REGARD TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE : ITA 1952/Del/2018 6. As regards Ground

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)

10. In ITA No 5636 /del /2014 the above issues on merits have been decided by the coordinate bench vide order dated 11/03/2014 as under :- “29. In ground no. 6, the assessee has raised the following grievance: 11. "6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing under 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

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Revenue has made out a case that reduction in the amount of deduction u/s 10A was justified because of the operation of the provisions of sub-section (10) of section 80IA. Sub-sec. (7) of sec. 10A provides that: „The provisions

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Revenue has made out a case that reduction in the amount of deduction u/s 10A was justified because of the operation of the provisions of sub-section (10) of section 80IA. Sub-sec. (7) of sec. 10A provides that: „The provisions

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

disallowance of Rs. 3,96,91,355/- made by the Assessing Officer but also enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs.29,56,344/- without issuing the notice of enhancement u/s 251 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in asseesse