KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance of Rs.36,66,75,500/- which was claimed as exempt under section 2(14) of the I.T. Act by the assessee. The A.O. made this addition rejecting the claim of assessee by treating profit on sale of Pooth Khurd village land to be exempt under section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, being agricultural lands not falling

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance of Rs.36,66,75,500/- which was claimed as exempt under section 2(14) of the I.T. Act by the assessee. The A.O. made this addition rejecting the claim of assessee by treating profit on sale of Pooth Khurd village land to be exempt under section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, being agricultural lands not falling

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

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

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

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

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

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL PEROT SYSTMES LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VOU INVESTMENT LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ICRA LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

MAXPAK INVESTMENT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL PEROT SYSTEMS LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

EICHER LTD. vs. COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act"). According to the assessee, the expenditure claimed was not hit by section 14A of the said act, on the ground that although borrowed funds were partly utilised for investment in shares held as trading assets, such investment was made with the intention to acquire and retain