SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance u/s 80 JJAA of the Act is a legal issue and can be raised at any stage. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact in right perspective. Further, he reiterated the submissions as made in the brief synopsis. For the sake of clarity the Brief Synopsis is reproduced herein below: “BRIEF SYNOPSIS

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is\nallowed

disallowed for non deduction of TDS- u/s 40(a)(ia)\n932,588\n932,588\nAdd: Provision for Obsolence and slow moving inventory\n27,446,706\n27,446,706\nAdd: Stamp duty for issue of shares\n4,000,001\n4,000,001\nAdd: Provision for Gratuity- u/s 40(A)(7)\n4,344,729\n3,800,059\n544,670\nAdd: Contribution

BSC C&C JV,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Bsc C&C Joint Venture, Vs. Acit, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Circle-62(1), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfb8115G Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2025

2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in not allowing the additional ground of appeal with regard to claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. M/s. BSC C&C Joint Venture 3. We have heard the rival

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

CANADIAN SPECIALITY VINYLS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 63(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Canadian Specialty Vinyls Ito Ward-63(4), Delhi 110055 49, Rani Janshi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 Vs. Pan Aagfc 0200 J

2,00,10,879/- on account of late filling of income tax return. He further submitted that the CIT (A) has also erred on facts and in law for not considering the timely filling of Audit Report us 80IC in form 10CCB under rule 18BBB and tax audit report in form 3CB/CD us 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 from

LOGICS POWERAMR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned Addl/JCIT-(A) -5 Kolkatta has grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in disallowing deduction under section 80IAC on the ground that report in form 10CCB was not filed by the due date whereas the same was filed

ACIT, CIRCLE- 24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPAN INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

2) prescribes the mode or methodology for the disallowance and the steps for its calculation. Unlike the other part of the statute which decree or enjoin the actual methodology and are substantive, Parliament deemed it appropriate to leave it to the rule making authority to prescribe the methodology, i.e. computation. For instance, what are taxable and in what proportion

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011- 12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

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

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

80A(5)\nonly uses the word return of income and does not restrict\nit to a particular return. Hence, in our respectful\nsubmission, a valid revised return under Section 139(5) is a\nreturn of income and hence the Assessee Company fulfils\nthis condition as well.\n\n18.\nThe above arguments are supported by the decision

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

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

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

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 INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

80A (5) of the Act.” b) Shree Bhavani Power Projects (P) Lt. Vs. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 733 (Delhi) “31. One of the reasons which appears to have weighed upon the Supreme Court while rendering its decision in Wipro Limited (supra) was of Section 10B being an exemption provision. This is evident from the Supreme Court significantly observing that Section