GIESECKE & DEVRIENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 04, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] Giesecke & Devrient [India] Pvt Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T Corporate Office, Plot No. 57, Special Range -04 Sector 44, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aabcg 4223 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

disallowed the claim of write-off by holding that the same has to be considered in terms of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act, meaning thereby that the Assessing Officer treated the same as bad debts. 31. Before the DRP, the assessee furnished additional evidences and alternative claim was also made by stating that

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., Ward-74(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Dlf Centre, 9Th Floor, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca

44A of the Act and thus the said sum is not chargeable for deduction of tax at source under section 194J of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that bank/institutions who issued the bill for such charges have included service tax in the bill raised by them, which shows that both payments

ISHWAR CHANDER PAHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanishwar Chander Pahuja, Vs. Acit, Circle 19 (1), C/O Sumer Garg & Co., Cas New Delhi. E-501A, Itl Northex Tower, Plot No.A – 9, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aafpp4275M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Order : 06.09.2024 Order The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing The Claim Of The Assessee Of Having Earned Agricultural Income At Rs.23,36,957/- & The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Treating The Same As Bogus Without Making Any Verification In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

disallowances along with necessary evidences 1 reasons forming the basis of the same." 7.1 The assessee had prayed the NFAC vide submissions dated 20.04.2022 (Page 103) as under: "It is further prayed that opportunity of hearing through video conferencing may kindly be afforded so that the appellant can forward oral arguments before your honor." The request was made in those

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

disallowance. We feel the assessee should be allowed to write back the depreciation for this year and even for previous and then allow the same to be carried forward for application for subsequent years. It is for the assessee to write back depreciation and if Hi >- V II done the Assessing Officer will modify the assessment determining higher income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION

disallowance. We feel the assessee should be allowed to write back the depreciation for this year and even for previous and then allow the same to be carried forward for application for subsequent years. It is for the assessee to write back . depreciation and if done the Assessing Officer will modify the assessment determining higher income and allow recomputed income

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. TCI FOUNDATION 10 RAM BAGH AZAD MARKET ROHTAK ROAD NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

disallowance. We feel the assessee should be allowed to write back the depreciation for this year and even for previous and then allow the same to be carried forward for application for subsequent years. It is for the assessee to write back depreciation and if Hi >- V II done the Assessing Officer will modify the assessment determining higher income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: “…………. that its entire purchases of paddy in the state of UP is governed by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and UP Krishi Utpadan Niyamavali, 1965. In terms of the said j Adhiniyam, no farmer can sell