DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

disallowances cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete them in both the assessment years. Grounds are allowed. 18. The next issue arising for consideration is concerning the nature and character of receipts from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), whether capital or revenue. This issue arises 10 | P a g e ITA No.1000/Del/2022; 539/Del/2021 & 1841/Del/2020 in all the three assessment years

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

disallowances cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete them in both the assessment years. Grounds are allowed. 18. The next issue arising for consideration is concerning the nature and character of receipts from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), whether capital or revenue. This issue arises 10 | P a g e ITA No.1000/Del/2022; 539/Del/2021 & 1841/Del/2020 in all the three assessment years

CHEIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2020-21 Cheil India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(2), 7Th Floor, Two Horizon C.R. Building, Centre, New Delhi – 2 Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Pan: Aaccc2299Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 270A of the Act. 8. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been wrongly ignored. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 10.02.2021 and processing u/s. 143(3) was completed

GRID CONTROLLER OF INDIA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS POWER SYSTEM OPERATION CORPORATION LTD),DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagrid Controller Of India Vs. Dcit (Formerly Known As Power System Circle-19(1), Operation Corporation Ltd) Delhi. B-9, 1St Floor, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, Hauz Khas, South Delhi, New Delhi Pan No. Aafcp2086B (Appellant) (Respondent)

115P of the Act is erroneous and bad in law. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of AO (CPC) without considering the fact that regular assessment proceedings had already been initiated prior to the intimation under section 143(1) and no addition has been made

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT SPL. RNAGE-2, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

CANDOR GURGAON ONE REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITECH REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT SPL. RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 2 , NEW DELHI vs. CANDOR GURGAON ONE REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI-TECH STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS & PROJECT PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS UNITECH DEVELOPERS AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 2 , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI vs. CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

CANDOR GURGAON ONE REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITECH REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 2 , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT LTD. (FORMERLY KNWON AS UNITECH DEVELOPERS AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE- 2, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

AMIT KUMAR,PANIPAT HARYANA vs. DCIT, NFAC (DELHI)

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed is related to the business activity against which Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed (section 80IAB in the instant case), the corresponding deduction ought to be allowed on the enhanced income: 1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ([2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kollcata - Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Keval Construction (Tax Appeal

JUBILANT FOODWORKS LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,5(1)(1)., GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGER

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

disallowance of Leasehold\nexpenditure.\n10. On facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting\nthe credit of INR 3,35,80,952 in respect of Dividend Distribution Tax chimed\nby the Appellant and further erred in levying interest under section 115P

GAP INTERNATIONAL SOURCING (INDIA) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (OSD) CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

115P). 6. Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest under Section 23 4B of the Act. 7. That the Ld. AO erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270(A) r.w.s 274 of the Act. That the above grounds of appeal

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDII CIT NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 802/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 & Sa No. 102/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17

disallowance to the extent of 50% of such expenses as being of capital nature in terms of section 37(1) of the Act is upheld. Depreciation under section 32(1) shall be allowable as per the Act. The assessee’s objections are disposed off as above. 5. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed as above

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

section 14A are not applicable as no exempt income was earned by the appellant during the year under consideration. 10. That on facts and in law while computing final assessable total income of Rs.106,19,78,110/- the AO has erred in making following errors which tantamount to "mistakes apparent from record":- (a) Making disallowance on account of Provision