M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the three assessment years

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the three assessment years

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the three assessment years

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

251 ITR 53) relied upon by the appellant was distinguishable on facts and would not apply. The Tribunal thereafter considered the applicability of the decision of the Madras Bench in the case of Raj Television Network Ltd. It held that the said decision need not be followed inasmuch as the 2011:DHC:566-DB Madras Bench did not have

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

251 12 VAT paid on purchases 2,960,787 13 Sample courier charges 11,064,039 14 Gym charges 355,988 15 Sample expenses for manufacture, suppliers and trade shows. 23,396,979 16 Export forwarding and clearing expenses 3,569,537 17 Misc. Expenses 3,960,471 18 Sales incentive expenses 2,869,355 19 Warehouse running and maintenance

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

section (a) in an appeal against an order of 251(1)(a) (which is assessment, he may confirm, reduce, relevant in respect of enhance or annul the assessment; appeals against an ………………… assessment order). (b) in an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, he may confirm or Therefore, the CIT(A) does cancel such order or vary

ASIA SUGAR INDS.P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhary

disallowance of expenses, be deleted. 5. With respect to ground No.2, the Learned A.R. submitted that during the course of search cash of Rs.58 lakhs was found and out of which Rs.44,50,000/- was seized. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to give explanation about the cash found to which assessee inter alia, submitted that cash

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

251 ITR 99affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court. The Kerala High Court observed as follows: "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is attracted where, in the course of any proceedings under the Act, the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority is satisfied that: (a) any person has concealed the particulars of his income

TRIVENI TURBINE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant holding that donations forming part of CSR expenditure is not allowable as deduction under section 80G of the Act. 4. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid issue is no longer re-integra and it has been held by various Benches of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the following cases

LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

251)\n4.\nHon'ble Apex Court in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal approving\nabove Hon'ble Delhi High Court order reported at 466 ITR 254\n5.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs. MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd.\nITA 593/2023 (30.07.2024) approving ITAT impugned order on sec.\n153D.\n6.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in case

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishia N D Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by remanding the issue of deduction of Rs.12,62,01,895/- in respect of write off / reversal made out of provision for bad and doubtful debts to the Assessing Officer, completely ignoring that such powers as remained has been extremely taken away by way of Finance Act, 2001 with effect

ASHISH DHAM,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1 and 2 ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the correct facts of the case and giving proper opportunity of being heard is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in making the addition of Rs. 12,52,000/- Page 3 of 11 ITA No.-1953/Del/2016. Ashish Dham. under section

HV METAL ARC PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1), New Delhi. PAN No: AABCH8468B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Gurjeet Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. M.N. Kumar Sathe, Sr. DR ORDER PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by the Assessee is filed against the order dated 29.12.2017 of Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

251(2) of the Act and thus in excess of jurisdiction. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining levy of interest. It is, therefore, prayed that addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) may kindly be deleted and appeal of the assessee be allowed

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

1)(c) of the Act on the above mentioned disallowances of depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/- and interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/-. The Ld. CIT-DR, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway, submitted that the depreciation was rightly disallowed and that was why the assessee

GURINDER MOHAN SINGH NINDRAJOG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 251 (1) (a), 263,154 and 147 of the Income-Tax Act. In the present case, where the CIT (A) is to decide the appeal, scope of his powers is stated in Station 251 (1)(a) ITA No.322/2005 Page 17 of 38 of the Act which empowers the CIT (A) to enhance the assessment as framed by the Assessing

GURINDER MOHAN SINGH NINDRAJOG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 251 (1) (a), 263,154 and 147 of the Income-Tax Act. In the present case, where the CIT (A) is to decide the appeal, scope of his powers is stated in Station 251 (1)(a) 2011:DHC:5139-DB ITA No.322/2005 Page 17 of 38 of the Act which empowers the CIT (A) to enhance the assessment

M/S GINNI GOLDLIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance and addition being the subject- matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in such cases, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has been empowered under section 251(1