GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

property by reference to an objective measure of profitability of an uncontrolled party, or comparable, that engages in similar transactions or operates under similar circumstances. The method compares the profitability of either the controlled party buyer or seller to the profitability of the comparable. The TNMM is statutory method prescribed under section 92C of the Act and under the Indian

M/S GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

property by reference to an objective measure of profitability of an uncontrolled party, or comparable, that engages in similar transactions or operates under similar circumstances. The method compares the profitability of either the controlled party buyer or seller to the profitability of the comparable. The TNMM is statutory method prescribed under section 92C of the Act and under the Indian

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

house property and profits and gain from business and profession”. The AO issued show cause notice to the assesee and his group of companies as to why their share premium / share capital / share forfeiture / Long Term Capital Gain/ Loss should not be treated as bogus as these entries were obtained through front companies which are controlled, managed

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

house property and profits and gain from business and profession”. The AO issued show cause notice to the assesee and his group of companies as to why their share premium / share capital / share forfeiture / Long Term Capital Gain/ Loss should not be treated as bogus as these entries were obtained through front companies which are controlled, managed

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

house property and profits and gain from business and profession”. The AO issued show cause notice to the assesee and his group of companies as to why their share premium / share capital / share forfeiture / Long Term Capital Gain/ Loss should not be treated as bogus as these entries were obtained through front companies which are controlled, managed

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

house property and profits and gain from business and profession”. The AO issued show cause notice to the assesee and his group of companies as to why their share premium / share capital / share forfeiture / Long Term Capital Gain/ Loss should not be treated as bogus as these entries were obtained through front companies which are controlled, managed

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

house property and profits and gain from business and profession”. The AO issued show cause notice to the assesee and his group of companies as to why their share premium / share capital / share forfeiture / Long Term Capital Gain/ Loss should not be treated as bogus as these entries were obtained through front companies which are controlled, managed

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

house property and profits and gain from business and profession”. The AO issued show cause notice to the assesee and his group of companies as to why their share premium / share capital / share forfeiture / Long Term Capital Gain/ Loss should not be treated as bogus as these entries were obtained through front companies which are controlled, managed

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

house property and profits and gain from business and profession”. The AO issued show cause notice to the assesee and his group of companies as to why their share premium / share capital / share forfeiture / Long Term Capital Gain/ Loss should not be treated as bogus as these entries were obtained through front companies which are controlled, managed

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

115J." The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue. Thus, this decision is also on the same issue taking contrary view. Under such circumstances the issue before us is as to follow which decision. Ld. CIT(DR) in course of hearing filed the decision of Tribunal in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. and referred to para

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

House of Lords held that on the true construction of the Agreements, the commissions in question were earned by the assessee in the year in which the policies were underwritten, and must be brought into account accordingly and confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. It may be noted that the charge was on profits arising in each chargeable