PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

disallowed the assessee’s claim for exemption. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim. On further appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, it was held that, irrespective of the fact that the assessee was not an educational institute recognized by any University/State Government/Central Government, since the assessee had its own prescribed syllabus, trained teachers, branches

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1) vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80G of the Act, was not produced by the assessee. The claim of the assessee for allowing said expenditure under section 37 of the Actwas disallowed by the assessing officer holding that same was not having any relation with the business of the assessee company. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance observing as under: “8.3.1. On going through

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80G of the Act, was not produced by the assessee. The claim of the assessee for allowing said expenditure under section 37 of the Actwas disallowed by the assessing officer holding that same was not having any relation with the business of the assessee company. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance observing as under: “8.3.1. On going through

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1),, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80G of the Act, was not produced by the assessee. The claim of the assessee for allowing said expenditure under section 37 of the Actwas disallowed by the assessing officer holding that same was not having any relation with the business of the assessee company. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance observing as under: “8.3.1. On going through

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80G of the Act, was not produced by the assessee. The claim of the assessee for allowing said expenditure under section 37 of the Actwas disallowed by the assessing officer holding that same was not having any relation with the business of the assessee company. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance observing as under: “8.3.1. On going through

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-11,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80G of the Act, was not produced by the assessee. The claim of the assessee for allowing said expenditure under section 37 of the Actwas disallowed by the assessing officer holding that same was not having any relation with the business of the assessee company. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance observing as under: “8.3.1. On going through

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G of the Act was claimed. Vide note no.13 to the computation of the income such contribution was claimed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. Ld. AO disallowed it holding that it was not incurred for the purposes of the business and alternatively as no tax has been deducted it was disallowable

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

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

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

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

ix. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd. {[2016] 69 taxmann.com 394 (Karnataka)} x. Dodson Lind blom Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. [2019- TIOL-531-HC-MUM-IT] xi. My Home Power Ltd. {[2014] 46 taxmann.com 314 (Andhra Pradesh)} 5.6 Further, we are not aware of any contrary judgment of any High Court on the issue nor the Ld. DR could point

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

ix. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd. {[2016] 69 taxmann.com 394 (Karnataka)} x. Dodson Lind blom Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. [2019- TIOL-531-HC-MUM-IT] xi. My Home Power Ltd. {[2014] 46 taxmann.com 314 (Andhra Pradesh)} 5.6 Further, we are not aware of any contrary judgment of any High Court on the issue nor the Ld. DR could point

JAGATPAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of Rs. 522036/- made by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has further erred by treating the declared short term capital gain as business income but did not re- compute the profit by adopting value of shares

JAGAT PAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of Rs. 522036/- made by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has further erred by treating the declared short term capital gain as business income but did not re- compute the profit by adopting value of shares

KAUR KOOKIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, DELHI-4, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

80G Deduction 4,500 iv. Business Loss 2,40,84,120 Thus it is apparent from the above computation of income that the assessee on its own had reduced the taxable business loss from the Book loss as per audited financials. The items of additions being contemplated in the notice u/s 263 have already been disallowed in the computation

NATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY FEDERATION OF INDIA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

5 about awareness of solar energy power and the same was communicated in Form 10. Therefore exemption u/s 11(2) should not be disallowed.” 3.3 The Learned Assessing Officer was of the view that Form 10 filed by the assessee on 30.10.2017 showing accumulation an amount of Rs.33,11,589/- under Section 11(2) of the Act is not eligible

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company has shown total purchase of raw material of Buffalo (Omasum and offal) at Rs.26,63,66,112/-. He noted that all these purchases are largely from the slaughter houses or their peripheral areas but for large part of such purchases no purchase invoices or vouchers were