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

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

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

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

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

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

UMAR DARAJ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

2. That the order dated 14.02.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Act by CIT(A) confirming legality of the notice and the additions made by ITO Delhi is illegal, and bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated are contrary to the provisions of law including the specific

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. We have culled out the above 3 grounds which are not adjudicated in the original appeal from the order dated 04/12/2015 in MA No. 133/del/2014 in ITA No. 5636/del/2011 for assessment year 2007 – 08 as under: 6.7 that the AO further failed to appreciate that the disallowance under section 40 (a) (ia) of the act was, in any case

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) is to be deleted. 14.96. It would be pertinent to point that section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

disallowing the claim of the assessees. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer in respect of both the assessees are deleted.” Vijay Kumar Baid (HUE), I.T.A. No.2300/CHNY/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 24-01-2019 46 Krishan Devi However, records produced by the assesses before me in the nature of contract

M/S. GLOBAL REALTY CREATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

151 section 153, where the and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of article or thing or books of account or documents seized account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or or requisitioned

M/S. GLOBAL TELEVENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

151 section 153, where the and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of article or thing or books of account or documents seized account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or or requisitioned

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

151 section 153, where the and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of article or thing or books of account or documents seized account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or or requisitioned

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

151 section 153, where the and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of article or thing or books of account or documents seized account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or or requisitioned

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. M/S DART INFRABUILD (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

151 of the Act. 8. Regarding the second issue, it has come to the fore that the appellant/revenue, concededly, had not issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act to the respondent/assessee. The appellant/revenue, however, has taken the stand, both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, that since the ROI for the AY in issue

SHANKER TRADEX PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 23(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue keeping all other issues and unadjudicated

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 3552, 105-10, Ravi Raj Market, Chawri Ward-23(1), Bazar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics8635G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 151(2) & additionally the sanctioning authority is not having 'charge' over the 'records' while granting the said approval. 1.2. Because the action for initiation, continuation and conclusion of reassessment proceedings is being challenged on facts & law. 1.3. Because the action for initiation of reassessment proceedings is un- reasonable since while recording reasons, there is non-application of mind

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

2% over process cost of processed silver transferred from non-eligible unit to eligible unit and to sustain disallowance of deduction to that extent only. Accordingly, ground number 7 of appeal of assessee is allowed partly to that extent.” 30. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for immediately preceding year we direct

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

151 (Kar). The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice stating that why brought forward unabsorbed depreciation may not be first allowed before calculating the deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. The assessee’s reply is incorporated in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply of the ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 6 assessee

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

151, Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "(t)he binding effect of a decision of this Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision " In view of these discussions, we see no reason

DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF UTILITIES LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4156/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Dlf Utilities Ltd., 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Tax, Circle-7(1), New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn3199A Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

2 DLF Utilities Ltd. assessment order when she has elaborately discussed why additions of Rs.37,40,940/- is being made u/s 14A of the I.T. Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has obtained loans of Rs.17.15 crores on which interest of Rs.1.44 crores has been paid. The assessee has used this amount towards extending interest

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of INR 516339/- under section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed