ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.105,67,271/- for Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- at Dibrugarh. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) was issued

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

Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through this consolidated order, as similar/interlinked issues are involved in these appeals. These appeals pertain to two assessees namely Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No. 3135/Del/2015, 3136/Del/2015, 3137/Del/2015) & Nirala

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

Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through this consolidated order, as similar/interlinked issues are involved in these appeals. These appeals pertain to two assessees namely Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No. 3135/Del/2015, 3136/Del/2015, 3137/Del/2015) & Nirala

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

Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through this consolidated order, as similar/interlinked issues are involved in these appeals. These appeals pertain to two assessees namely Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No. 3135/Del/2015, 3136/Del/2015, 3137/Del/2015) & Nirala

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

Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through this consolidated order, as similar/interlinked issues are involved in these appeals. These appeals pertain to two assessees namely Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No. 3135/Del/2015, 3136/Del/2015, 3137/Del/2015) & Nirala

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

Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through this consolidated order, as similar/interlinked issues are involved in these appeals. These appeals pertain to two assessees namely Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No. 3135/Del/2015, 3136/Del/2015, 3137/Del/2015) & Nirala

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UV REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.24(A) while assessing the income from house property on the ground that assessee has not produced any evidence. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, the assessee challenged that, ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law in passing ex-parte assessment order u/s.144 without having jurisdiction over the case on the assessee

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

124)/10000 = -89336 per share 14. In view of above, it is clear that during AY 2013-14, shares were issued at a price more than FMV of shares of the assessee company. Thus, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) are applicable with reference to shares issued during AY 2013-14. Since 2,40,83,333 shares

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

124)/10000 = -89336 per share 14. In view of above, it is clear that during AY 2013-14, shares were issued at a price more than FMV of shares of the assessee company. Thus, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) are applicable with reference to shares issued during AY 2013-14. Since 2,40,83,333 shares

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

124 of the Act, then transfer order u/s 127 is mandatory, without which the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer cannot be conferred to pass any order. If such a statutory procedure is not followed then there would be a chaos where any Assessing Officer can pass order in the case of any assessee even when he does not have

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

section 2(viii) of the NBFC Directions, 1998 as “a financial institution carrying on as its principal business the providing of finance whether by making loan or advances or otherwise for any activity other than its own”. Thus, it was held by the AO that assessee company is not in the business of money lending. Further, it was also noted

M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

section 2(viii) of the NBFC Directions, 1998 as “a financial institution carrying on as its principal business the providing of finance whether by making loan or advances or otherwise for any activity other than its own”. Thus, it was held by the AO that assessee company is not in the business of money lending. Further, it was also noted

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) is to be deleted. 14.96. It would be pertinent to point that section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

2) of the earlier\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922). There is, however this difference\nbetween these two provisions that whereas Section 124 fixes jurisdiction,\nterritorial or otherwise, of the Income Tax Officers, Section 64 fixed the\nplace where an assessee was to be assessed. xxx xxxxxxxXX\n9. It is in the light of these considerations that we have

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of Rs.28,22,882/- made out of legal and professional charges expenses by incorrectly holding that the said payments made to various non-residents was not taxable in India and that the AO was not correct in invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia)of the I.T. Act". 3. First we deal with the appeal of the revenue. Briefly