ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain circumstances in which the exemption provided under section 11/ 12 is not applicable. Further, Section 164(2

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain circumstances in which the exemption provided under section 11/ 12 is not applicable. Further, Section 164(2

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain circumstances in which the exemption provided under section 11/ 12 is not applicable. Further, Section 164(2

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain circumstances in which the exemption provided under section 11/ 12 is not applicable. Further, Section 164(2

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

2)(e) of the Act are clearly applicable, the benefit of section 11 or section 12 is not allowable to the assessee. Accordingly, he proceeded to disallow the whole investment to the extent of Rs.69,00,000/-. Further he observed that since the provision of section 13

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

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

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules"), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares'for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules"), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares'for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

CHEMINVEST LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies