DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,23,190/- claimed by the assessee in respect of leased out properties in the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 framed by him under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report on each ground

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

801B of the Act in view\nof the provisions of sub section (13) of section 80IB of the\nAct, that the audit report should be furnished along with\nthe return of income is a directory requirement and would\nstand satisfied if the audit report is furnished during the\ncourse of the assessment proceedings. The aforesaid\nposition of law has also

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

section 80IB(10) of the Act, relief of Rs.65,09,343/- was allowed. Thus the disallowance of deduction us 801B

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 801B(10): 10. The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31" day of March, 2008 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if, - (a) Such undertaking has commenced

OMAXE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 801B(10): 10. The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31" day of March, 2008 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if, - (a) Such undertaking has commenced

M/S. SHEELA FOADM (P) LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

801B was not suo-moto offered for disallowance by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 2.3 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that suo-moto surrender of excess claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act through a letter, during the course of assessment proceedings did not partake

BALDEV SINGH & SONS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 43(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3103/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Baldev Singh & Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14-A, Najafgarh Road, Income Tax, Circle-43(1), New Delhi Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Road Pan: Aaahb4937M New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G. S. Kohli, Ca Respondent By Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2023 Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Addl. Cit(A)]. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Had Failed To Appreciate The Written Submission & The Documents Filed Before Him & Thus The Justice Had Not Been Given To The Humble Appellant.

801B since the same was allowed to him in previous years. 4.13. In this context it is mentioned that various courts have opined that every Assessment year is a separate unit governed by its own peculiar facts. In the instant case the peculiar fact was that the 4 Baldev Singh & Sons appellant did not filed form 10CCB and also

ERADICATUS INFECTUS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

801B and 80IC, as is evident from below summary under:- 5 i) It was submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that at S. No. 30 of Form 10CCB, the requirement is to fill details of "Deduction under section 80-1/80- 1A/80-IB/80-IC (Strick out whichever is not applicable)". There is no field for certifying deduction u/s 80-IAC. h) Moreover

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants