GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSET LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Green Infra Wind Farm Asset Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.8, Circle-10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaecg4080H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ca & Shri Biren Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

44B or section 44BB or section 44BBA or section 44BBB and such income has been offered to tax at the rates specified in those sections. Explanation 5.—For the purposes of sub-section (2), the expression "securities" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation

DCIT, GURGAON vs. SH. CHANCHAL SINGH DHEK, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit Vs. Sh. Chanchal Singh Dhek Circle -1 (1) Prop. M/S. Great Roadways Gurgaon Anaj Mandi Chowk, Gurgaon Pan No. Aaopd6087G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s. 44B. Subsequently the AO found that assessee has debited lorry hire charges to the extent of Rs.1,66,43,122/-on which no TDS was deducted by the assessee. He, therefore, issued a notice u/s. 154 of the IT Act. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, the AO following the provisions of section

JUBILANT FOODWORKS LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

disallowing deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act by incorrectly placing reliance on the provisions of Section 80AC of the Act which is not applicable on the facts of the case. 3-On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. CPC grossly erred in charging interest of INR 10,92,887 under sections

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub-section (6) has been inserted in Section 195 which requires the payer to furnish information relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

44B of the Act; (ii). Whether service tax receipts would form the part of gross receipts/turnover; and 6 ITA No.6589/Del./2014 & CO No. 221/Del./2015 (iii). Whether interest u/s. 234B is chargeable in the case of payments made to non-resident where TDS has been fully deducted on such payments. 3. The brief facts of the case are that

DELFIN FINANCE P.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

disallow the lease equalization charges of Rs.44,59,754/- and depreciation claimed by the assessee to the extent of Rs.24,35,000/-. 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A)-3, New Delhi and filed detailed submissions as under :- “Assessee company was initially assessed on 22.03.2000 by making the audition of Rs.44

DELFIN FINANCE P.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

disallow the lease equalization charges of Rs.44,59,754/- and depreciation claimed by the assessee to the extent of Rs.24,35,000/-. 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A)-3, New Delhi and filed detailed submissions as under :- “Assessee company was initially assessed on 22.03.2000 by making the audition of Rs.44

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEWSOFT OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-3945/Del/2010 (A.Y 2007-08)

disallowance of a sum of Rs.1,44,078/- (Rs.One Lakhs Forty Four Thousands Seventy Eight Only) u/s14A towards expenses in earning exempted income by ignoring the factual position.” 3. The assessee company was engaged in the business of providing online and real time education to retail and institutional plans on a variety of programmes and subjects including computers, management, languages

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

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

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