DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

disallowance of Rs.67,98,422/-, is deleted. 3.3. So far as addition of Rs.113,31,36,000/- made by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

disallowance of Rs.67,98,422/-, is deleted. 3.3. So far as addition of Rs.113,31,36,000/- made by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

56 I.T.A. No.881/DEL/2019 published Master Plan. Only EDC and Fee etc. has been claimed for deduction and not on the amount paid on the value of the land for development. Further, the EDC and fee etc. paid for open area, parks, roads, amenities, facilities and services useable by the residents of the colony / complex is not claimed as a deduction

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

viia)(II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about the inherent implausibility

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

viia)(II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about the inherent implausibility

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

viia)(II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about the inherent implausibility

CONVERGYS INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 782/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 & Sa No. 132/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Industrial Plot No. 243, Tower-A, Circle-4(2), 3Rd, 4Th, 5Th 1St & Tower-B, New Delhi 2Nd 5Th Ground & Floors, Sp Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc5056G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr & Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2022

disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 43B of the Act holding, • that section 43B of the Act is qua 'an assessee’ 7 SA No. 132/Del/2021 Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. • that the Act contains specific provisions in other sections to entitle the amalgamated company to claim the deductions to which the amalgamating company was entitled to and such language

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit Electrical & Electronics Central Circle-13 India Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Business Communication Centre, 21 Parsi Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kolkata West Bengal - 700001 Pan No.Aaace5419J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi Dated 27.08.2018 Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition To Rs.5,63,34,120/- U/S 56(2)(Viia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.16,06,000/-On Account Of Business Loss Incurred On Sales Of Shree Shaleen Taxtiles Ltd. 3. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,59,777/-On Account Of Business Loss On The Valuation Of Shares Of M/S Cressanda Solution Ltd. 4. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous & Not Tenable In Law & On Facts. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any/All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of The Hearing Of The Appeal.

section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, therefore, no interference is called for in the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No.1 is dismissed. 16. Coming to the 2 ground we find that the assessee has done trading in the shares of Shree Shalin Textile Limited wherein it incurred losses of Rs.159777/-. The assessee had also invested in the shares

CRAYONS ADVERTISING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

disallowance of Rs. 3,40,313/- representing bed debt allowable under section 36(l)(vii) of the Act and alternatively as business loss under section 28 of the Act. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. Apropos Ground

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

56,78,375/-. Accordingly, claim u/s 36(1)(vii) up to the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) was disallowed and the balance amount of bad debt written off in respect of the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) amounting to Rs. 207,09,87,602/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 plus Rs.27,46,115 minus Rs.488

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

56,78,375/-. Accordingly, claim u/s 36(1)(vii) up to the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) was disallowed and the balance amount of bad debt written off in respect of the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) amounting to Rs. 207,09,87,602/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 plus Rs.27,46,115 minus Rs.488

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

56,78,375/-. Accordingly, claim u/s 36(1)(vii) up to the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) was disallowed and the balance amount of bad debt written off in respect of the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) amounting to Rs. 207,09,87,602/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 plus Rs.27,46,115 minus Rs.488

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

56,78,375/-. Accordingly, claim u/s 36(1)(vii) up to the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) was disallowed and the balance amount of bad debt written off in respect of the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) amounting to Rs. 207,09,87,602/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 plus Rs.27,46,115 minus Rs.488

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

56,78,375/-. Accordingly, claim u/s 36(1)(vii) up to the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) was disallowed and the balance amount of bad debt written off in respect of the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) amounting to Rs. 207,09,87,602/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 plus Rs.27,46,115 minus Rs.488

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

56,78,375/-. Accordingly, claim u/s 36(1)(vii) up to the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) was disallowed and the balance amount of bad debt written off in respect of the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) amounting to Rs. 207,09,87,602/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 plus Rs.27,46,115 minus Rs.488

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

56,78,375/-. Accordingly, claim u/s 36(1)(vii) up to the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) was disallowed and the balance amount of bad debt written off in respect of the amount of deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) amounting to Rs. 207,09,87,602/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 plus Rs.27,46,115 minus Rs.488

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 142(2A) of the Act on 06.05.2009. In the assessment order, additions to the tune of Rs.10,15,99,67,581/- were made to the returned income of Page 3 of 144 Rs.3,40,64,22,522/- making the assesse income of Rs.13,56,63,90,100/-. Out of the total addition of Rs.10

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 142(2A) of the Act on 06.05.2009. In the assessment order, additions to the tune of Rs.10,15,99,67,581/- were made to the returned income of Page 3 of 144 Rs.3,40,64,22,522/- making the assesse income of Rs.13,56,63,90,100/-. Out of the total addition of Rs.10