SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

disallowance of Rs. 11,49,116/- being capital gain amount not deposited in bank. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings vide order sheet entry dated 07.06.2016 the Ld. CIT(A) required the assessee to submit certain information / evidence including show cause why exemption under section 54

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 54 is genuinely claimed by him and therefore, disallowance made under section 54 amounting to ... may be deleted” 3.6. Assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 54 is genuinely claimed by him and therefore, disallowance made under section 54 amounting to ... may be deleted” 3.6. Assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 54 is genuinely claimed by him and therefore, disallowance made under section 54 amounting to ... may be deleted” 3.6. Assessee

RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(2) , DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

disallowance of deduction of Rs.53,15,441/- under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, the ‘Act’) is justified

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

54,13,927 PFC-8.18% 98,71,812 Total 15,11,45,290 Detailed working of disallowance under section 14A of the Act computed

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 14Af of the Act. 12.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in attributing entire interest expenditure incurred during the year towards earning of exempt income by mechanically applying provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules. Re: Disallowance of depreciation on model fee on the ground that the same was attributable to closing stock of finished

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 10.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income aggregating to ₹ 2,77,17,070/-, which was claimed as exempt under section 10(34)/10(35) of the Act as under: (i) Rs.1,54

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 10.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income aggregating to ₹ 2,77,17,070/-, which was claimed as exempt under section 10(34)/10(35) of the Act as under: (i) Rs.1,54

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 10.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income aggregating to ₹ 2,77,17,070/-, which was claimed as exempt under section 10(34)/10(35) of the Act as under: (i) Rs.1,54

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 10.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income aggregating to ₹ 2,77,17,070/-, which was claimed as exempt under section 10(34)/10(35) of the Act as under: (i) Rs.1,54

NUTAN CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2012-13

section 54 of the Act and AO is directed to allow the exemption us/ 54.” 7. Respectfully following the above decision which is applicable on the facts of the present case also, we hold that assessee is entitled to the exemption claimed by her and direct the AO to delete the disallowance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on total income of Rs. 1,53,74,00,120/- on 19.01.2016 for AY 2013-14 including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- on investment made in windmills; disallowance of Rs. 20,54

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on total income of Rs. 1,53,74,00,120/- on 19.01.2016 for AY 2013-14 including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- on investment made in windmills; disallowance of Rs. 20,54

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on total income of Rs. 1,53,74,00,120/- on 19.01.2016 for AY 2013-14 including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- on investment made in windmills; disallowance of Rs. 20,54

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on total income of Rs. 1,53,74,00,120/- on 19.01.2016 for AY 2013-14 including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- on investment made in windmills; disallowance of Rs. 20,54

ITO,WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. VINOD GUGNANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds of Appeal of the Revenue fails, consequently the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return for assessment year 2016-17 declaring business loss of Rs. 4,90,125/- and claimed a refund of Rs. 8,94,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. The assessment order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

section 54. In view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted such disallowance