CIT vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LT

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

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

section 14A(2) of the Act. (ii). That the appellant himself has made disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of Rs.9,15,256

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4078/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6935/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2036/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Mantola Cooperative Vs Income Tax Officer, Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-62(5), 541, Mantola, Phar Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajt1976A Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2020

disallowance 15,28,066 14,54,330 6,81,174 Total taxable income 87,99,149 68,38,319 54,12,931 Deduction claimed in return of income - 87,99,149 68,38,319 54,12,931 80P(2)(a)(i) Tax demand if deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is restricted to income earned from 80,77,256

MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4078/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6935/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2036/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Mantola Cooperative Vs Income Tax Officer, Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-62(5), 541, Mantola, Phar Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajt1976A Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2020

disallowance 15,28,066 14,54,330 6,81,174 Total taxable income 87,99,149 68,38,319 54,12,931 Deduction claimed in return of income - 87,99,149 68,38,319 54,12,931 80P(2)(a)(i) Tax demand if deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is restricted to income earned from 80,77,256

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4078/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6935/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2036/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Mantola Cooperative Vs Income Tax Officer, Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-62(5), 541, Mantola, Phar Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajt1976A Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2020

disallowance 15,28,066 14,54,330 6,81,174 Total taxable income 87,99,149 68,38,319 54,12,931 Deduction claimed in return of income - 87,99,149 68,38,319 54,12,931 80P(2)(a)(i) Tax demand if deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is restricted to income earned from 80,77,256

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent in nature. He further submitted that similar provision for increase in prices as at the end of the year was accepted and allowed in Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODI RUBBER LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the High Court called for a reference on the basis that the question was a question of law. We are unable to agree with the High Court. In the first place, the Tribunal has held that the addition had been made on the basis of pure guess work and this