JINDAL ITF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2015-16

115B states that in case of assessees income computed by applying normal provisions is less than 18.5% of its book profit than 18.5% of book profits would be deemed to be its total income. This phrase cannot be implemented. Normal income cannot be compared with book loss, therefore by this interpretation section would become in workable. Finally, we would submit

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

115B of the Act applicable for companies in life insurance business, thereby granting part-relief to the Appellant. 1.10. In the present appeal, the Appellant has challenged aforesaid action of the CIT(A)/ assessing officer in imposing penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. 2. Appellant’s contentions before the Hon’ble Tribunal 2.1. It is respectfully submitted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

disallowed and added to the total income.” 3. Keeping in view the details filed and after discussion with assessee’s representative, total income was computed by Ld. A.O. as under: Total income as per order u/s 254/ 250/143(3) dt. 16.03.05 Rs.5,85,87,177/- Add: Income as discussed above Rs.23,65,01,411/- Total income Rs.29

LNG SECURITIES SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed. (b)The assessment revised under Section 147 on 27/04/2011 on the ground that certain income escaped the assessment. The A.O order says "The mistake resulted in under assessment of income by Rs. 9,54,626/-. (c) In the assessment order the ITO has explained the nature of transaction in detail but while framing the assessment order erroneously added loss

GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSET LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Green Infra Wind Farm Asset Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.8, Circle-10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaecg4080H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ca & Shri Biren Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

115B; (ii)a person who has exercised the option referred to under section 115BAA or section 115BAB. (6)The provisions of this section shall not apply to the income accrued or arising on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered, by an entrepreneur or a Developer, in a Unit or Special

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MORADABAD, MORADABAD vs. GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowances and adjustments under the normal provisions of the Act as well as book profit computed under Section 115B of the Act. The income

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowances and adjustments under the normal provisions of the Act as well as book profit computed under Section 115B of the Act. The income

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. VEDANTA LIMITED.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

disallowance made, had invoked and applied Rule 8D of the Income Tax rules, 1962(‘Rules’, for short) as if it was mandatory. This is clear from the relevant portion of the assessment order under the heading expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income under section 14A read with Rule 8D, which for the sake of completeness

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, JHANDEWALAN vs. STERLING AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , DELHI

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 80IA(5) providing for were the of deduction as if the business is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(1) year only source of income of the assessee during the period between initial assessment profits and of relevant other businesses? assessment year thus clearly debarring set-off losses of previous year against 4. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, JHANDEWALAN vs. STERLING AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , DELHI

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 80IA(5) providing for were the of deduction as if the business is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(1) year only source of income of the assessee during the period between initial assessment profits and of relevant other businesses? assessment year thus clearly debarring set-off losses of previous year against 4. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, JHANDEWALAN vs. STERLING AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , DELHI

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 80IA(5) providing for were the of deduction as if the business is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(1) year only source of income of the assessee during the period between initial assessment profits and of relevant other businesses? assessment year thus clearly debarring set-off losses of previous year against 4. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 22.4 Thus, by virtue of Section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of the said Act read along with the DERC regulations shall override the provisions of all other Acts, including the Companies Act, 1956. 22.5 Corresponding to the aforesaid, even the Companies Act, 1956 (section 616) and the Companies

M/S. SHANTI SARUP & SONS PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 263 order are either incorrect or are untenable in law and various case laws relied upon by the Id. CIT are not applicable to the appellant's case, being distinguishable on facts. 2. That, without prejudice to ground no.1 above the direction of Id. CIT to AO vide Para 8 to disallow proportionate interest paid by the assessee