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

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

SHAKTI SINGH GULIA,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO, WARD- 4, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 40A(3) summarily as a matter of course based on data provided by assessee. To our mind, the disallowances are not justified in the totality of facts and circumstances placed before us. 10.4 The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Suresh Kumar (2021) 124

SHAKTI SINGH GULIA,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO, WARD- 4, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 40A(3) summarily as a matter of course based on data provided by assessee. To our mind, the disallowances are not justified in the totality of facts and circumstances placed before us. 10.4 The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Suresh Kumar (2021) 124

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

3. The brief facts apropos the issue raised in Cross Objection are that, assessee is a company which was registered on 04.11.2004 and since then it has registered office at New Delhi, which is evident from the copy of certificate of incorporation at page 36 of the paper book. The assessee-company derives rental income from the properties which

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent in nature. He further submitted that similar provision for increase in prices as at the end of the year was accepted and allowed in Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page

VISHAN GUNNA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI, INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Vishan Gunna, Vs Acit, Plot No.550, House No.- Circle-Int.Tex 1(3)(1), 8-3-293/83/J-Iii, Road New Delhi. No.92, Jubilee Hills, Telangana-500033. Pan-Bmypg5434R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.Mohan Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Abhishek Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025

disallowed the cost incurred for construction of servant quarter, compound wall etc,. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred in denying the exemption clamed u/s 54EC. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

disallowance. A minor irregularity cannot be blown out of proportion to resort a convenient approach of the rejection of the book results". Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR. "Insignificant mistake cannot afford a ground for resorting to section 145(3) or estimation of income. So long as it is not impossible to deduce the true income from

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

3 lakhs. The ITAT reproduced the contents of para 3.3.1 of the assessment order, which has been extracted by this Court hereinbefore, which contains general observations regarding earning of exempt income. This cannot be accepted as a recording by the AO of satisfaction regarding the claim of the Assessee after examining its accounts. Again, in para 34 of its order

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

3 lakhs. The ITAT reproduced the contents of para 3.3.1 of the assessment order, which has been extracted by this Court hereinbefore, which contains general observations regarding earning of exempt income. This cannot be accepted as a recording by the AO of satisfaction regarding the claim of the Assessee after examining its accounts. Again, in para 34 of its order

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

3 lakhs. The ITAT reproduced the contents of para 3.3.1 of the assessment order, which has been extracted by this Court hereinbefore, which contains general observations regarding earning of exempt income. This cannot be accepted as a recording by the AO of satisfaction regarding the claim of the Assessee after examining its accounts. Again, in para 34 of its order

M/S. LAIRY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowing entire expenses of Rs. 7,011/-. The ld. A.R. further submitted that search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act in this case was carried out on 10.1.2012 at the business as well as residential premises of Minda Group in A.Y 2012-13. All subsequent proceedings were conducted therein u/s 153A of the Act. The ld. Counsel

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

disallowance of the cost of improvement was not decided by the CIT(A) in a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(3)", "Section 144", "Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 250", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 124

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

3) of the Scheme states that “Assignment not allowed except absolute assignment in favour of kayman in case of his leaving the job of the company”. Clause 4(e) on the same page reads as under: “The following endorsement shall be placed on the policy for which prior consent from the employer should be obtained before the completion

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

3) of the Scheme states that “Assignment not allowed except absolute assignment in favour of kayman in case of his leaving the job of the company”. Clause 4(e) on the same page reads as under: “The following endorsement shall be placed on the policy for which prior consent from the employer should be obtained before the completion

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

3 ITA Nos. 910 to 914/Del./2015 disbursement were reimbursement and directed that if found so, same be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel before us submitted that all factual information in respect of the ‘trade scheme’ to ‘Sales Promoters’ are already available on record and in additional ground, the assessee is seeking remedy by way of a legal ground

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

3 ITA Nos. 910 to 914/Del./2015 disbursement were reimbursement and directed that if found so, same be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel before us submitted that all factual information in respect of the ‘trade scheme’ to ‘Sales Promoters’ are already available on record and in additional ground, the assessee is seeking remedy by way of a legal ground

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

3 ITA Nos. 910 to 914/Del./2015 disbursement were reimbursement and directed that if found so, same be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel before us submitted that all factual information in respect of the ‘trade scheme’ to ‘Sales Promoters’ are already available on record and in additional ground, the assessee is seeking remedy by way of a legal ground

CIT vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

disallowed under Section 37(1) of .the Act. 16. Mr. Sahni further argued that the Tribunal placed reliance upon Circular No.762 dated 18^'' February, 1998 explaining the tax asjDect relating to keyman insurance policy was not appropriate' and the Tribunal neither-appreciated the import of the said Circular in a proper manher, nor it examined the • effect of Sections