PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

139(9) of the Act. 19.01.2016 The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs. 1,10,42,45,751/- as against the income declared of Rs. 1,07,56,68,480/- in the invalid return of income after making certain disallowances aggregating

RRPR HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

9 Act. The AO concluded that in view of S. 139(3), the capital loss can not be carried forward unless the return showing such loss is filed under S. 139(5) of the Act, whereas the Assessee has not claimed such loss in the ROI filed under S. 139(1) of the Act and made an altogether fresh claim

EFFORT FOUDATION (N.G.O),DELHI vs. ITO , DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1204/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Effort Foundation (N.G.O.), Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 233, Pocket-10, Nasirpura, Exemption Ward-1(1), Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae4486D Assessee By: An Adjournment Application Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order

disallowed the assessee’s section 11 exemption claim on account of the fact that it had filed it’s return on 14.03.2019 i.e. very well beyond the due date thereof coming to 30.09.2018. It is noticed in this factual backdrop that the tribunal’s recent order in Indian Medical Association Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 767/PUN/2025 dated 16.06.2025 that even

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

ARVIND KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-18(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

139(1) of the I.T. Act to be eligible for the benefit of section 10AA of the I.T. Act. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA of the I.T. Act reads as follows:- “(8) The provisions of sub-sections (5)62 and (6) of section 10A shall apply to the articles or things or services referred to in sub-section

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

disallowing exemption of Rs. 11,49,116/- under section 54 of the Act for the reason that the assessee paid Rs. 21,72,752/- only before due date of filing original return i.e. 31.07.2012 towards properties purchased before due date of filing belated return i.e. 31.03.2014. This contention of the Ld. AO has been assailed

ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI vs. SUBRAMANIAM HARIHARAN, NEW DELHI

disallowed payments amounting to these law firms or\nindividuals invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act, allegedly holding\nthat the said payments were in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS)\n3\n\nand therefore, were chargeable to tax in India, thus tax at source should have\nbeen deducted. The same was sustained

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

9 of the CLC]: Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court allowed the deduction under section 80JJАА\nof the Act, despite the fact that in this case the assessee\nfiled claim of deduction during the assessment\nproceedings (along with Form 10DA). Hon'ble Court also\nheld that where the claim under Section 80JJAA of the\nAct was otherwise sustainable

DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. A.P. SECURITAS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is allowed and appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-Dda, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1315R

9 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench) has held that in matters of exemption and incentive provisions, the conditions prescribed therein are to be strictly construed and the burden lies upon the assessee to establish compliance.  In the present case, the condition u/s 80AC(ii) is explicit, substantive and mandatory. Failure to file return within Section 139(1) extinguishes the assessee

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

139 of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer has to, thereafter, proceed with the assessment/reassessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act; that is, accept the return with or without such adjustments as permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act or if the claims made by the assessee are considered as inadmissible and/or it is considered necessary

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

139 of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer has to, thereafter, proceed with the assessment/reassessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act; that is, accept the return with or without such adjustments as permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act or if the claims made by the assessee are considered as inadmissible and/or it is considered necessary

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

139 of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer has to, thereafter, proceed with the assessment/reassessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act; that is, accept the return with or without such adjustments as permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act or if the claims made by the assessee are considered as inadmissible and/or it is considered necessary

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

139 of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer has to, thereafter, proceed with the assessment/reassessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act; that is, accept the return with or without such adjustments as permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act or if the claims made by the assessee are considered as inadmissible and/or it is considered necessary

SUBRAMANIAM HARIHARAN,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-63(1), NEW DELHI

disallowed payments amounting to these law firms or\nindividuals invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act, allegedly holding\nthat the said payments were in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS)\n3\nITAs No.600/Del/2020, 9832/Del/2019 & 2134/Del/2018\nand therefore, were chargeable to tax in India, thus tax at source should have\nbeen deducted. The same was sustained

FARIDABAD SERVICE STATION,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-30(4), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer‘s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) was not warranted. Since, we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee based upon the first limb of the arguments advanced by the Senior Counsel we do not deem it necessary to deal with other two limbs of arguments advanced by the senior counsel. In view of above, appeals filed by the assessee

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) was not warranted. Since, we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee based upon the first limb of the arguments advanced by the Senior Counsel we do not deem it necessary to deal with other two limbs of arguments advanced by the senior counsel. In view of above, appeals filed by the assessee