M/S L.T. FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

11A) of the Act and making the following additions: – S.No Addition Amountin Rs. 1 addition under section 40A(3) of the Act 8,00,129/- 2 addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 1,84,67,810/- 3 Addition on account of shorter deduction of TDS 10,30,213/- 4 Disallowance

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DAWAT FOODS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(11A) is that the predominant activity of the assessee is milling/de-husking of paddy, which does not constitutes a ‘manufacturing activity’, and is beyond the scope of Section

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DAWAT FOODS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(11A) is that the predominant activity of the assessee is milling/de-husking of paddy, which does not constitutes a ‘manufacturing activity’, and is beyond the scope of Section

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3, NEW DELHI vs. DAAWAT FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(11A) is that the predominant activity of the assessee is milling/de-husking of paddy, which does not constitutes a ‘manufacturing activity’, and is beyond the scope of Section

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3, NEW DELHI vs. DAAWAT FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(11A) is that the predominant activity of the assessee is milling/de-husking of paddy, which does not constitutes a ‘manufacturing activity’, and is beyond the scope of Section

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

Disallowance of Deduction U/s 80IB(11A) 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the A.O. has erred in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DAAWAT FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made by the assessing officer and held that the assessee was engaged in the integrated business of transporting, handling and storage of foodgrains and condition stipulated in section 80IB(11A

DAWAT FOODS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made by the assessing officer and held that the assessee was engaged in the integrated business of transporting, handling and storage of foodgrains and condition stipulated in section 80IB(11A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

11A) are fulfilled and, therefore, entitled to the deduction under section 80IB(11 A) of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the bare facts of the case that the plant & machinery put to use prior to 01.04.2001 in Bahalgarh Unit, constituted more than

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

11A) are fulfilled and, therefore, entitled to the deduction under section 80IB(11 A) of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the bare facts of the case that the plant & machinery put to use prior to 01.04.2001 in Bahalgarh Unit, constituted more than

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LVP FOODS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

11A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and declared book profit of ₹ 5,84,92,531/- under section 115JB of the Act. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 29/03/2016 and disallowed

M/S L.T. FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07

disallowance of deduction under section 80IB (11A) of the Act is bad under law and cannot be sustained. We, accordingly

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07

disallowance of deduction under section 80IB (11A) of the Act is bad under law and cannot be sustained. We, accordingly

ACIT CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI vs. LTC COMMERCIAL COMPANY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2014-15

disallowance under section 801B(11A) works out to Rs. 6,40,43,928/- (Business income as per computation of income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we reverse the order of the learned CIT – A income from the above disallowances and allow the appeal of the assessee to these extent

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 16339670/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 5. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.” 25. The brief facts of the case shows that original return of income was filed on 30/9/2005 declaring

PRADEEP KUMAR BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT - CPC, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Pradeep Kumar Batra, Vs. Dcit, M-5/C-4, Jhulelal Apartments, Jhule Lal Cpc, New Delhi Flats, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afcpb6141A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Disallowance of claim under section 80IB (11A) is not covered in section 143(1)(a)(ii) and thus worthy DCIT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(11A) for not filing Form 10CCB and corresponding Schedule 801B or Form 10 CCB has not been

BT E- SERV (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 99/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Bt E-Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Ward-5(2), Vs. Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcb2533M (Appellant) (Respondent)

11A), deduction under section 10AA should be granted to assessee for the AY 2010-11, since the export proceeds that have ^ been disallowed

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11A(1) of the Act and as to why the duty amount of Rs. 6,73,376/- paid by them during investigation should not be appreciated against this liability. Also, as to why they should not be penalized under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the CCR read with Rule 25 of the Rules and Section 11AC