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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. provided to the Petitioner to file objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. provided to the Petitioner to file objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. provided to the Petitioner to file objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowing provisions thereof would be inapplicable. 23. As regards the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant would be liable to pay interest under Section 234A. However, with regard to levy of interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held that if the receipt of income by the appellant was of such

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

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

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

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

B S,\nZafar Marg,\nNew Delhi,\nPAN: AAGPG3909G\n(Appellant)\nACIT (1)(1),\nC R Building,\nVs. ITO, I.P. Estate,\nNew Delhi\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by None\nRespondent by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing 03/02/2026\nDate of Pronouncement 06/02/2026\nORDER\nPER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, J.M. :\n1. This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier; (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

B. Average value of investment 26,588 C. Average of total assets 9,86,947.50 D. Disallowance=A*B/C 31.84 (iii) ½% of average value of 132.94 investments [0.5%x3,32,90,205] Total disallowance 164.78 Less: Suo moto disallowance made in the return 67.03 Net disallowance made in the assessment order 97.75 The assessing officer has alternately proposed to disallow

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

b) has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The expressions 'has concealed' and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars' have not been defined either in the section or elsewhere in the Act. However, notwithstanding differences in the two circumstances, they lead to the same effect, viz., keeping off a certain portion of income. The former is direct while the latter

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

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

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee-company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating-company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: ………………..” 25. The Supreme Court proceeded to record

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

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

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

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

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

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

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

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

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

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

144(1) read 5 ITA Nos.6810/Del/2019 & Ors. Swadesh Kumar Mishra vs. ACIT with Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Moreover, the order so framed is illegal, as the application and framing of the order is not only erroneous but also illegal, as: i. Once the books of accounts rejected, the same books cannot be relied for framing