STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed with no costs

Section 43(1) were not applicable, appears to be completely misplaced. The reduction in the value of the assets was occasioned by the waiver of the loan by the Government and the amount of reduction was to the extent of accretion in capitalized interest.” 2012:DHC:2259-DB ITA 37/2010 & conn. Page 5 of 16 In this view

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

43,88,624/- was claimed under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”]. 3.1. The assessment concerning the appellant/assessee was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. An order to that effect was passed on 30.12.2010, wherein the appellant/assessee‟s taxable income was assessed at Rs. 36,28,88,570/-. The assessing officer [in short

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

43,88,624/- was claimed under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”]. 3.1. The assessment concerning the appellant/assessee was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. An order to that effect was passed on 30.12.2010, wherein the appellant/assessee‟s taxable income was assessed at Rs. 36,28,88,570/-. The assessing officer [in short

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

43,88,624/- was claimed under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”]. 3.1. The assessment concerning the appellant/assessee was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. An order to that effect was passed on 30.12.2010, wherein the appellant/assessee‟s taxable income was assessed at Rs. 36,28,88,570/-. The assessing officer [in short

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE COMTRADE LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs M/S Religare Comtrade Ltd Circle-21(1), (Formerly Known As Religare New Delhi. Bullion Ltd.), D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aaecr8405P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) Under Section 250 (6) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds No.1 & 2 Raised By The Revenue Relate To The Same Issue Of Loss Incurred On Account Of Trading In Gold Derivatives Which Was Disallowed By The Ao Treating It As Speculative In Nature, In Terms Of Its Definition U/S 43(5) Of The Act, Which, However, Was Allowed By The Ld.Cit(A). The Said Grounds Read As Under:-

section 43(5) and it applies to the case of the assessee and the transaction is held to be not speculative in nature. It is also relevant to note here that despite the order of AY 2012-13, the AO has not made the disallowance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

43,000/- disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

43,000/- disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

43,000/- disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

43,000/- disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

43,000/- disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

43,000/- disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

43,000/- disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

43,000/- disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowance under section 14A is concerned. In such eventuality, the assessing officer cannot embark upon a determination of the amount of expenditure for the purposes of section14A(1). In case, the assessing officer is not, on the basis of objective criteria and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowance under section 14A is concerned. In such eventuality, the assessing officer cannot embark upon a determination of the amount of expenditure for the purposes of section14A(1). In case, the assessing officer is not, on the basis of objective criteria and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowance under section 14A is concerned. In such eventuality, the assessing officer cannot embark upon a determination of the amount of expenditure for the purposes of section14A(1). In case, the assessing officer is not, on the basis of objective criteria and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowance under section 14A is concerned. In such eventuality, the assessing officer cannot embark upon a determination of the amount of expenditure for the purposes of section14A(1). In case, the assessing officer is not, on the basis of objective criteria and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowance under section 14A is concerned. In such eventuality, the assessing officer cannot embark upon a determination of the amount of expenditure for the purposes of section14A(1). In case, the assessing officer is not, on the basis of objective criteria and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee