DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

2) of section 145 of the Act. The AO further observed that in preceding assessment years assessee computed its income on POCM bases. Accordingly, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

2) of section 145 of the Act. The AO further observed that in preceding assessment years assessee computed its income on POCM bases. Accordingly, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

2) of section 145 of the Act. The AO further observed that in preceding assessment years assessee computed its income on POCM bases. Accordingly, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2,40,000/- is hereby disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the returned income of the assessee for the AY-2020-21.” [Emphasis was supplied by us.] 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A); who rejected the books of accounts under section 145

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 [which was pari materia with the section 37(1) of Income tax Act, 1961....... .......... PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. & Addl.CIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. 5.9 Exchange rate is dynamic and fluctuates virtually on day-to-day basis. Hence, if there is gain

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 [which was pari materia with the section 37(1) of Income tax Act, 1961....... .......... PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. & Addl.CIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. 5.9 Exchange rate is dynamic and fluctuates virtually on day-to-day basis. Hence, if there is gain

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 [which was pari materia with the section 37(1) of Income tax Act, 1961....... .......... PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. & Addl.CIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. 5.9 Exchange rate is dynamic and fluctuates virtually on day-to-day basis. Hence, if there is gain

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 [which was pari materia with the section 37(1) of Income tax Act, 1961....... .......... PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. & Addl.CIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. 5.9 Exchange rate is dynamic and fluctuates virtually on day-to-day basis. Hence, if there is gain

ASHIRWAD CARBONICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE-3(1), 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

2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought to tax amounts which were deducted by the employer/assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL vs. RELIABLE REALTECH PVT LTD, BHIWANI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, C/O Nk Jain Adv. Sec-12, Karnal, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani Haryana Pin 132001 Haryana Pin 127021 Pan Aadcr4203L (Appellant) (Respondent)

145 of the Act and its profits were computed by applying the AS-7. The AO added a sum of Rs. 1,56,88,100 to the Assessee's declared income by applying the percentage completion method. Apart from this the AO disallowed certain other sums including the sums on account of depreciation and under Section

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

2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought to tax amounts which were deducted by the employer/assessee

HANS RUBBER & SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MEERUT

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

2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought to tax amounts which were deducted by the employer/assessee

UNITED COFFEE HOUSE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-52(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 M/S. United Coffee House, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-15, Connaught Place, Ward-52(4), Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaafu1260G (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought to tax amounts which were deducted by the employer/assessee

SURENDER KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1045/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Surender Kumar, Vs Adit, M Sahu & Associates, Ca, House No. Cpc, 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Near Union Bangalore Bank Of India, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agupk6911C Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022

2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought to 8 Surender Kumar tax amounts which were deducted

VHS ENTERPRISES ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought to tax amounts which were deducted by the employer/assessee

VHS ENTERPRISES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought to tax amounts which were deducted by the employer/assessee

RAJAN BANQUET PVT.LTD.,MORADABAD vs. ACIT-1, MORADABAD

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought to tax amounts which were deducted by the employer/assessee

FLYING FABRICATION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 1(4), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Flying Fabrication, Vs. Income Tax Officer, The Tax Chambers Advocates Ward-1(4) & Legal Advisors, C-177, Gurgaon Defence Colony, Lgf, New Delhi Pan :Aadff9825H (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought to tax amounts which were deducted by the employer/assessee