DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH MEHTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Cit, Vs. Shri Mahesh Mehta, Cc-3, 2042, Katra Tobacco, Room No. 355, 3Rd Floor, Khari Baoli, Delhi - 6 Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan: Agbpm7320C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Respondent By : None

disallowance made u/s. 80IB of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 49,246/-. 2(a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leaves to add, alter oa amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or durign the course of the hearing of the appeal

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S CELL COM TELSESERVICES PVT. LTD.,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2683/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit Circle-1 Vs Cell Com Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., A- Ghaziabad 52, A-36, Upsidc Industrial Area, Sikandarabad, Bulandshahar- 203205 Pan-Aaccc1688D (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 51/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Cell Com Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., A- Vs Dcit Circle-1 52, A-36, Upsidc Industrial Area, Ghaziabad Sikandarabad, Bulandshahar-203205 Pan-Aaccc1688D (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No- Aaccc1688D Assessee By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018

Section 268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In its cross objection, the only ground raised by the assessee read as under:- “i. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact by allowing the amount

M/S. LAKHANI INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Lakhani India Ltd, Circle-Ii, Block-B, Plot No. 131, New Cgo Complex, Nh-Iv, Nit, Sector-24, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Aaacl3113G (Appellant) (Respondent) Lakhani India Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 131, Circle-Ii, Block-B, Sector-24, Faridabad New Cgo Complex, Nh-Iv, Pan: Aaacl3113G Nit, Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of ₹ 3559022. As this is the only issue involved in the appeal of the revenue and the tax effect in the issue of the appeal is less than ₹ 2,000,000/– . 16. At the time of framing the order of the appeal, it is noticed that Section 268A

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. URBANE THE DESIGN WORKSHOP, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 4330/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs Urbane The Design Workshop, 5, South Appts Mis Flats, 1St Floor, Circle-61(1), New Delhi Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfu7451L Co No. 303/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Urbane The Design Workshop, Vs Acit, 5, South Appts Mis Flats, 1St Circle-61(1), Floor, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfu7451L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: The Appeal By The Department & The Cross Objection Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-20, New Delhi.

Section 268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In the Cross Objection, the only grievance of the assessee relates to the confirmation of addition of Rs.43,376/- made by the AO by disallowing

RAJ KUMAR KEDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department as well as of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3354/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dcit Vs Raj Kumar Kedia Central Circle-13, Room No. 332 59/17, Bahubali Apartment Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Rohtak Road New Delhi New Delhi Aaopk7634A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3098Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Raj Kumar Kedia Vs Acit 59/17, Bahubali Apartment Central Circle-13 New Rohtak Road Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension Aaopk7634A New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In the assessee’s appeal following grounds have been raised:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the additions /disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are beyond the scope/jurisdiction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR KEDIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department as well as of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3354/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dcit Vs Raj Kumar Kedia Central Circle-13, Room No. 332 59/17, Bahubali Apartment Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Rohtak Road New Delhi New Delhi Aaopk7634A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3098Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Raj Kumar Kedia Vs Acit 59/17, Bahubali Apartment Central Circle-13 New Rohtak Road Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension Aaopk7634A New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In the assessee’s appeal following grounds have been raised:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the additions /disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are beyond the scope/jurisdiction

M/S TIMES INTERNET LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

disallowance be deleted, in our considered opinion, is no more a valid proposition in view of the insertion of section 268A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S TIMES INTERNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

disallowance be deleted, in our considered opinion, is no more a valid proposition in view of the insertion of section 268A

ACIT, NAJIBABAD vs. SHRI DHRUV RAJ SINGH, BIJNOR

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowance of Rs.2,17,337/- in r/o alleged reimbursements ignoring the facts that the assessee has initially denied receipt of any amount towards reimbursements. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs.8,40,000/- made as deemed rent

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KOKOLATH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowance is called for. 9.4. Pertinently, no addition having been made for the year by the Assessing Officer, the alternate contention of the assessee to the effect that no addition can be made during the year, stands accepted by both the Authorities below. 9.5. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in any case do not apply

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 17, NEW DELHI vs. SDB INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Departmental Appeal is not maintainable as have been filed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

disallowance under section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 ITA.No.4011/Del./2018 M/s. SDB Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi. 2. The assessee moved an application for early hearing of the appeal because the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is below Rs.20 lakhs. However, none appeared on behalf of the Revenue. The claim of assessee is that

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PUSHPANJALI FINSOLUTIONS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Pushpanjali Warsd 20(2), Finsolutions Limited, New Delhi M-63-64, First Floor, 2Nd Room No. 218, Connaught Place, New Floor, C.R. Building, Delhi – 2 I.P. Estate, (Pan: Aafcp2583B) New Delhi – 2 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 2. The appellant craves to add, modify or delete any of the grounds on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 2. It is noted that the tax effect involved in this Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs, hence, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the appeal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IKEA TRADING INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

disallowed by the Ld. CIT (A). The findings in respect of the same are found at page 26 of his order. Thus the amount of Rs. 33.65 Lacs stands reduced by Rs.10,70,000/-. 4.2 We are thus in agreement with the contention of the Ld. AR that tax on addition alleged by the revenue is below 10 Lacs

ACIT, MEERUT vs. SH. ANKUR SINGHAL, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri K.N. Chary, Jm Assessment Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs. Ankur Singhal, Circle-1, Prop. M/S Spacedek, Meerut. 36, Kishanpuri, Meerut. Pan: Ajrps2367Q Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Sapra, Advocate Deptt. By : Shri S.K. Jain, Dr

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, amounting to Rs.17,64,970/-. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that pursuant to the mandate of section 268A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEOSTYLE INTERIORS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Departmental Appeal is not maintainable as have been filed against the instruction of the Board

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

disallowance of depreciation in a sum of Rs.Rs.2,17,098/-. Thus, admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is below Rs.20 lakhs. Vide Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

M/S HALDIRAM MANUACTUING CO. PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: H.S Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., B-1/H-3, Mohan Co- Tax, Range 12, New Delhi Operative Indl. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaach3170K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Tax, Circle-12(1), New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-1/H-3, Mohan Co- Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaach3170K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 2,60,012/- was in respect of purchase of UPS which was held by the assessee as a revenue expenditure. However, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in para 6.9 of his order has held that the said expenditure was capital in nature. He has also further directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation thereon

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HALDIRAM MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: H.S Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., B-1/H-3, Mohan Co- Tax, Range 12, New Delhi Operative Indl. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaach3170K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Tax, Circle-12(1), New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-1/H-3, Mohan Co- Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaach3170K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 2,60,012/- was in respect of purchase of UPS which was held by the assessee as a revenue expenditure. However, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in para 6.9 of his order has held that the said expenditure was capital in nature. He has also further directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation thereon

ACIT, CIRCLE- 18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NOIDA MEDICARE CENTRE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit(E), Vs. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd, Circle-18 (2), Vimhans, 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0980B (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances of Rs. 23,63,350/- and Rs. 34,42,677/- u/s 37(1) of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing it was submitted that the assessee company has undergone the process of corporate insolvency resolution process under the provision of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 and therefore, no proceedings under the Companies Act can continue till