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

1 in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 relate to disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- and Rs. 11,41,153/- respectively . In making the impugned disallowances the Ld. AO followed the order of AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein it is, interalia alleged that the assessee has made investment in windmill to earn income from investments

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

1 in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 relate to disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- and Rs. 11,41,153/- respectively . In making the impugned disallowances the Ld. AO followed the order of AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein it is, interalia alleged that the assessee has made investment in windmill to earn income from investments

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35D of the Act is confirmed.” 29. Aggrieved by the reversal of penalty imposed, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 30. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue and perused the material available on record. 31. At the outset, we have already opined in cross appeal of the Assessee

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35D of the Act is confirmed.” 29. Aggrieved by the reversal of penalty imposed, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 30. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue and perused the material available on record. 31. At the outset, we have already opined in cross appeal of the Assessee

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35D of the Act is confirmed.” 29. Aggrieved by the reversal of penalty imposed, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 30. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue and perused the material available on record. 31. At the outset, we have already opined in cross appeal of the Assessee

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35D of the Act is confirmed.” 29. Aggrieved by the reversal of penalty imposed, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 30. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue and perused the material available on record. 31. At the outset, we have already opined in cross appeal of the Assessee

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35D of the Act is confirmed.” 29. Aggrieved by the reversal of penalty imposed, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 30. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue and perused the material available on record. 31. At the outset, we have already opined in cross appeal of the Assessee

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35D of the Act is confirmed.” 29. Aggrieved by the reversal of penalty imposed, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 30. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue and perused the material available on record. 31. At the outset, we have already opined in cross appeal of the Assessee

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35D of the Act is confirmed.” 29. Aggrieved by the reversal of penalty imposed, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 30. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue and perused the material available on record. 31. At the outset, we have already opined in cross appeal of the Assessee

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35D of the Act is confirmed.” 29. Aggrieved by the reversal of penalty imposed, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 30. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue and perused the material available on record. 31. At the outset, we have already opined in cross appeal of the Assessee

(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

B4S SOLUTION P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowed under Section 43- B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 . 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

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)

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made by the Ld. AO in view of the 2nd Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. First Proviso to Section 201(1

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. GE PACKAGED POWER INC

201 read with Section 221 of the I.T. Act. In addition, he would also be liable under Section201(1A) to pay simple interest at 12 per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid. The most important expression in Section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

201 ITR 325. In that\ndecision, the provisions of section 80J(6A) were\nconsidered. The wording of section 80J(6A) is similar to\nthat of section 80-IA(7) which is in issue in the present\nappeal. The Gujarat High Court took the view that the\nword \"shall\" which occurs in section 80J(6A) be read

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective