THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation allowance of Rs. 1,82,35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation allowance of Rs. 1,82,35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred

KAVITA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

111A / 112 of the Income Tax Act. These are alternative claims raised by the assessee. In our considered opinion, these grounds now become in fructuous in view of our adjudication in Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 above which has been decided in favour of the assessee. Grounds 2, 2.1 and 2.2 are accordingly dismissed. 7.0 Ground

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

111A / 112 of the Income Tax Act. These are alternative claims raised by the assessee. In our considered opinion, these grounds now become in fructuous in view of our adjudication in Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 above which has been decided in favour of the assessee. Grounds 2, 2.1 and 2.2 are accordingly dismissed. 7.0 Ground

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

Section 111A of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. Vs CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) " Indramani Bai (Smt.) Vs Addl. CIT 200 ITR 594 (SC) " CIT Vs V. S. P. Balasubramaniam 250 ITR 127 (Mad.) " Immortal Financial Services P. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 4094/Mum/2010 order dated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAJIV KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Laliet Kumarita No. 4989/Del /2012 [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. Shri Rajiv Kapooor Circle - 22(1) C/O H.L. Kapoor Investment & New Delhi Financial Consultants 5, Trimurti Building [Basement], Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan : Aampk 0195 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Department By : Shri Kartar Singh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Amit Sharma, Ca Shri Prashant Sharma, Ca Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2016 Order

house property, income from capital gains, and income from other sources. The assessee is a financial consultant engaged in the sale of fixed deposits, bonds, mutual fund units and life insurance products as an agent/broker. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the details of transactions on which capital gains had been earned. From the details filed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SHREE SHYAMKAMAL INDS. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by revenue as well as assessee’s stands allowed for statistical purposes

111A of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 57,852/- as expenses attributable to earn dividend income of Rs.5,58,362/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, without appreciating that the CBDT Notification No.45/2008 dated 24.03.2008 was effective from 01.04.2007 related

M/S. SHREE SHYAM KAMAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by revenue as well as assessee’s stands allowed for statistical purposes

111A of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 57,852/- as expenses attributable to earn dividend income of Rs.5,58,362/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, without appreciating that the CBDT Notification No.45/2008 dated 24.03.2008 was effective from 01.04.2007 related

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

111A and 114A of the said Act.] Likewise, it cannot be said that since rape is a heinous crime, Parliament should have provided the death penalty in all cases relating to such crime. Illustratively, reference was made to Section 376A, 376AB, 376DB and 376E of the IPC [which provide for the death penalty], as against the offences which are brought

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorized as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorized as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorized as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead