DILIP KAPUR,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarshri Sudhir Pareek

section 142A of the Act.  Disallowance of Rs. 22,61,728/- on account of cost of improvement  Disallowance of Rs. 27,49,400/- on account

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on ground no

disallowance of legitimate business loss incurred by the assessee on account of securities & commodity transactions indirectly which is not permissible under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessee is eligible for set off of such business losses under the law. II. That the learned ITO very much prejudice with the assessee for the reasons best known

CIT vs. AMBIENCE HOTELS & RESORTS LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

disallowance, originally ordered by the Assessing Officer on account of cost of construction and sought to be brought to tax under Section-69C of the Income Tax Act. 2. At the outset, it is submitted by counsel that the main order made in ITA-581-593/2012 Page 4 the case of M/s. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure

CIT vs. AMBIENCE HOTELS & RESORTS LTD

Appeals are dismissed

disallowance, originally ordered by the Assessing Officer on account of cost of construction and sought to be brought to tax under Section-69C of the Income Tax Act. 2. At the outset, it is submitted by counsel that the main order made in 2012:DHC:6227-DB ITA-581-593/2012 Page 4 the case of M/s. Ambience Developers

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NILKANTH CONCAST PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Nilkanth Concast Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income C/O- Cargo Conveyor, Bbz, Tax, Central Circle-10, North-66, Zanda Chowk, New Delhi. Gandhidham (Pan: Aabcn8500A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Nilkanth Concast Pvt. Ltd. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, Indira Tax, Circle-10, New Delhi Place, H-Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (Pan: Aabcn8500A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Ca Department By: Sh. Ravi Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Cross Appeals, Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Department, Are Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxxii, Delhi, Dated 26.03.2012 Passed For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessee Filed Appeal In Ita No.

disallowance may kindly be deleted. v. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 92,01,500/- out of total addition of Rs. 1,12,01,500/- made u/s 69 of the Act being alleged investment made in construction of factory building. The addition may kindly be deleted. vi. The learned

NILKANTH CONCAST PVT. LTD.,RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Nilkanth Concast Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income C/O- Cargo Conveyor, Bbz, Tax, Central Circle-10, North-66, Zanda Chowk, New Delhi. Gandhidham (Pan: Aabcn8500A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Nilkanth Concast Pvt. Ltd. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, Indira Tax, Circle-10, New Delhi Place, H-Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (Pan: Aabcn8500A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Ca Department By: Sh. Ravi Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Cross Appeals, Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Department, Are Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxxii, Delhi, Dated 26.03.2012 Passed For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessee Filed Appeal In Ita No.

disallowance may kindly be deleted. v. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 92,01,500/- out of total addition of Rs. 1,12,01,500/- made u/s 69 of the Act being alleged investment made in construction of factory building. The addition may kindly be deleted. vi. The learned

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

SECTION 142A OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of making reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer ('OVO') u/s. 142A of the Act for the purported determination of the FMV of the immovable properties owned

SMT. GEETA NARANG,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142A of the Act for determining the cost of construction. Alternatively, Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer could have given opportunity to the assessee to arrange a valuation report from a registered valuer so as to justify the construction cost as claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that a copy of valuation report as an additional