MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LTU, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0828R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aditya Chhajed, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

disallowed in the computation of income. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the Tax Audit Report as well as the Financial statements were audited by the same auditors and therefore the AO cannot made the addition only on the basis presumptions without rebutting the submissions made by the assessee that the actual figure

AVIAXPERT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.87/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Avia Xpert Pvt. Ltd. Ito, E-178, East Of Kailash, Vs. Ward 3(1), New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica7960L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of Section 206CB; (1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing I.T.A.No.87/Del/2024 such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force

THE NEW VIKASH CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] The New Vikash Co-Op. House Vs Ito, Building Society Ltd., Adv. Vijay Ward-Ii(4), Kumar Gupta, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad. Main Bazar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004. Pan-Aaajt1595P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, section 154 of the Act is reproduced as under:- “Rectification of mistake. 154. (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in section 116 may,— (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GULSHAN CHEMICALS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1523/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1524/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs M/S Gulshan Chemicals Ltd., Circle-10(2), E-12, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg4002H

200A;] [(d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB.] [(1A) Where any matter61 has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GULSHAN CHEMICALS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1523/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1524/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs M/S Gulshan Chemicals Ltd., Circle-10(2), E-12, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg4002H

200A;] [(d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB.] [(1A) Where any matter61 has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend

RAO KHEM CHAND VIDYA VIHAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,REWARI vs. ITO-TDS,ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowance of expenses on account of non deduction of Tds. (ii). The ITO. Tds treated that assessee - appellant as default u/s 201/201(1A), without ascertaining as to whether taxes had been deposited or not by recipient of income directly as per the mandatory provisions of Explanation to section 191. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in the return filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10. Therefore, notice is not time barred. The ld AO thereafter held that the assessee has not deducted tax of Rs. 23871484/- and therefore, he treated the assessee as the „assessee in default‟ for that sum. He further charged interest u/s 201(1A) amounting

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

disallowed the claim for deduction/exemption of Rs.12,17,41,860/- under Section 10B, as made in the return. He also made additions in alternative. Total 2015:DHC:1179-DB ITA 551/2013 & 553/2013 Page 4 of 30 income of the assessee on the basis of aforesaid addition and other additions was computed at Rs.10,86,14,708/-. 6. The assessee succeeded

SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

section 55(2) and the term “cost of improvement” has been defined in sec. 55(1)(d). As per the above provisions, cost of any improvement in relation to any capital assets other than good will and manufacturing rights etc. provided in sub-clause (i) 10 means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations

BRAHMA TOURISM INDIA PVT. LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT WARD 5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roybrahma Tourism India Vs. Acit, Ward-5(2) Private Limited Central Revenue 200A, Gali No.2, Building Block A, Shakarpur, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi - 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcb2402M Appellant .. Respondent

200A, Gali No.2, Building Block A, Shakarpur, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi - 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AADCB2402M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.06.2025 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed