BALDEV SINGH & SONS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 43(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3103/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Baldev Singh & Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14-A, Najafgarh Road, Income Tax, Circle-43(1), New Delhi Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Road Pan: Aaahb4937M New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G. S. Kohli, Ca Respondent By Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2023 Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Addl. Cit(A)]. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Had Failed To Appreciate The Written Submission & The Documents Filed Before Him & Thus The Justice Had Not Been Given To The Humble Appellant.

disallowed as a prima facie adjustment. Some more examples in this regard are non-filing of audit reports or other evidence along with the return of income as required under sections 12A(ft), 33AB(2), 35E

VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

35E also speaks of production in the context of mining activity. The language of these sections is similar to the language of section 32A(2). There is no reason for us to assume that the word "production" was used in a different sense in section 32A. 9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that extraction and processing of iron

GEO CONVEST LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1),

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 35A to 35E of the Act and apart from that there is no provision under the Act under which deferred revenue expenditure could be allowed to the assessee . 6.1 In view of above observations, the Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S GEO CONNECT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 35A to 35E of the Act and apart from that there is no provision under the Act under which deferred revenue expenditure could be allowed to the assessee . 6.1 In view of above observations, the Assessing Officer disallowed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEO CONNECT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 35A to 35E of the Act and apart from that there is no provision under the Act under which deferred revenue expenditure could be allowed to the assessee . 6.1 In view of above observations, the Assessing Officer disallowed

DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1) vs. GEO CONNECT LTD,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 35A to 35E of the Act and apart from that there is no provision under the Act under which deferred revenue expenditure could be allowed to the assessee . 6.1 In view of above observations, the Assessing Officer disallowed

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, we must also add that the prescribed authority would also necessarily have to examine the manner in which the affairs of the university or an educational institution have been conducted in the past for the purposes of considering whether the Assessee qualifies the threshold requirement of Section

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3504/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

35E etc. Since loan processing fee is a capital expenditure, it is not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, addition of Rs. 3,88,01,009/- is made to the returned income. The contention of the appellant with regard to the same is reproduced as under: "During the assessment year, the appellant had incurred an expenditure

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3504/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

35E etc. Since loan processing fee is a capital expenditure, it is not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, addition of Rs. 3,88,01,009/- is made to the returned income. The contention of the appellant with regard to the same is reproduced as under: "During the assessment year, the appellant had incurred an expenditure

M/S DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGG. SERVICES LTD.,, GURGAON

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3504/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

35E etc. Since loan processing fee is a capital expenditure, it is not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, addition of Rs. 3,88,01,009/- is made to the returned income. The contention of the appellant with regard to the same is reproduced as under: "During the assessment year, the appellant had incurred an expenditure

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARA VEGETABLE OIL AND FOODS COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[A.Y 2003-04] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/S Dhara Vegetable Oil & Foods Circle – 5(1) Company Ltd [Now Amalgamated New Delhi With Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd, Mother Dairy, Patparganj, New Delhi Pan : Aaccm 3174 A [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2018

disallowed in the assessment order. The perusal of the records for A.Y.2003-04 reveals that the assessee had claimed deductions under sub-clause (I), (ii) & (iv) of sub section (1) of section 35 of the I.T. Act. The details of which are as under:- u/s.35(1)(i) Rs.92,10,889/- u/s.35(1 )(ii) Rs.65,64,853/- u/s.35

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD vs. C.I.T

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

disallowed the expenses claimed by the appellant as revenue expenditure. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The CIT(A), vide order dated 7.8.2003, confirmed the action of the AO. The appellant preferred the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the „Tribunal‟). The Tribunal vide

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

disallowed the expenses claimed by the appellant as revenue expenditure. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The CIT(A), vide order dated 7.8.2003, confirmed the action of the AO. The appellant preferred the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the „Tribunal‟). The Tribunal vide