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

9,99,49,572/- being a capital receipt under section 115JB of the Act.” AY 2013-14 - Revenue “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that no interest bearing funds were used by the assessee in making investment giving rise to tax exempt

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

9,99,49,572/- being a capital receipt under section 115JB of the Act.” AY 2013-14 - Revenue “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that no interest bearing funds were used by the assessee in making investment giving rise to tax exempt

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

9,99,49,572/- being a capital receipt under section 115JB of the Act.” AY 2013-14 - Revenue “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that no interest bearing funds were used by the assessee in making investment giving rise to tax exempt

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

9,99,49,572/- being a capital receipt under section 115JB of the Act.” AY 2013-14 - Revenue “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that no interest bearing funds were used by the assessee in making investment giving rise to tax exempt

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

9,99,49,572/- being a capital receipt under section 115JB of the Act.” AY 2013-14 - Revenue “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that no interest bearing funds were used by the assessee in making investment giving rise to tax exempt

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

9,99,49,572/- being a capital receipt under section 115JB of the Act.” AY 2013-14 - Revenue “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that no interest bearing funds were used by the assessee in making investment giving rise to tax exempt

JEKPL PRIVATE LIMITED (ERSTWHILE JUBILANT ENERGY (KHARSANG) PVT LTD),NOIDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla

801B(9) of the Act was held as unconstitutional in the case of Niko Resource Ltd vs. UOI: [2015] 374 ITR 369 (Gujarat) dated 26.03.2015 by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The ld. Counsel argued that the New Wells in respect of which drilling was completed and commercial production was commenced during the financial year

JEKPL PVT. LTD. (ERSTWHILE JUBILANT ENERGY (KHARSANG) PVT LTD),NOIDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla

801B(9) of the Act was held as unconstitutional in the case of Niko Resource Ltd vs. UOI: [2015] 374 ITR 369 (Gujarat) dated 26.03.2015 by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The ld. Counsel argued that the New Wells in respect of which drilling was completed and commercial production was commenced during the financial year

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

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

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 10B, reliance placed by the Ld. AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 and CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 to the facts of the assessee’s case and his findings on interpretation of the term “derived

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

9. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under:- a) That disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80-IAC is without jurisdiction, illegal, contrary to the provision of the Act and bad in law. b) It was submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that the denial of deduction u/s 80-IAC on ground that the assessee

M/S. OAKLAND BOTTLERS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2009-10 Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-13(1), 10/46A, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco 4250B (Appellant) (Respondent)

801B. c) The assessee’s claim that the original filed on 30.09.2009 is not acceptable because the return filed on 30.12.2009 by the assessee is shown as belated return in the ITD system. Further, the acknowledgement of the original return is being reflected in ITD. The ITD system has also not allowed the deduction claimed u/s.80IB as 4 the return

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowed the deductions claimed by the taxpayer u/s 10AA on account of interest income of Rs. 7,57,24,178/- and miscellaneous income of Rs. 2, 90,63,825/-. On the ground that the said income cannot be set to have any direct nexus with the assessee business because the assessee is not into the business of finance and investment

ACIT CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI vs. LTC COMMERCIAL COMPANY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2014-15

801B (11A) stands fulfilled apart from the other conditions. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the orders of the authorities below and also the material referred to before us at the time of hearing .The entire dispute is with regard to claim of deduction u/s 80IB (11A) which the assessee has claimed on the ground that

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

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidence 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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, 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