COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

IDHAYAM INFRAHEIGHTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLCE, FARIDABAD

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ita No. 6779/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Shop No. 2, Second Floor, Lajpat Central Circle, Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Faridabad, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd9391G Assessee By: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 6778 & 6779/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S In Case Nos. 10948/2019-20 & 10308/2020-21 Both Dated 11.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

11A-11B, Atmaram House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, rent agreements were seized as Annexure A-7. The society M/s Takshila Education Society had rent agreement with M/s Idhayam Infraheights Pvt Ltd (for rent of Basement, C-404, Defence Colony) and also with M/s Harmonia Consultants Pvt Ltd (the appellant) (for rent of Ground floor, C-404, Defence Colony), both companies

IDHAYAM INFRAHEIGHTS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , FARIDABAD

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ita No. 6779/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Shop No. 2, Second Floor, Lajpat Central Circle, Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Faridabad, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd9391G Assessee By: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 6778 & 6779/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S In Case Nos. 10948/2019-20 & 10308/2020-21 Both Dated 11.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

11A-11B, Atmaram House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, rent agreements were seized as Annexure A-7. The society M/s Takshila Education Society had rent agreement with M/s Idhayam Infraheights Pvt Ltd (for rent of Basement, C-404, Defence Colony) and also with M/s Harmonia Consultants Pvt Ltd (the appellant) (for rent of Ground floor, C-404, Defence Colony), both companies

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

house property Rs.81,609/- Total Rs.2,02,919/- 3. Subsequently, on 24.07.2013 the CIT-16, Delhi, called for a report from the AO regarding errors in assessment of the assessee and his wife Smt. Shumana Sen. An order u/s 127 of the Act was passed by the ld.CIT-16 on 27.08.2013 transferring the jurisdiction over the assessee’s case from

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

house property (D) – Profits and gains of business or profession (E) – Capital gains (F)- Income from other sources. 9.4 In the instant case, we are concerned with “profits and gains of business or profession”. Section 28 of the Act provides that, amongst others, income from “profits and gains of business or profession” which was carried on by the assessee during

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

properties or combinations, whether by hand labor or machine. 14. The word 'manufacture' has been defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol. 29 p.23 as under:- 'Manufacture has been defined as a manner of adapting natural materials by the hands of man or by man-made devices or machinery and as the making of an article

JCIT SPL. RANGE-12, NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANTA INDUSTRIES, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

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

property dealer Mittal Associates in the locality and inquired about the address but they too denied existence of any such address in Vishwas Nagar There was a bhandara going on in the locality, I enquired the gathered locals of Vishwas Nagar about the M/s Tecpro Sale & Marketing and the address but they denied existence of any such firm of address

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

Housing Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ; 441 ITR 285(del)  Devanshu Infin Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ;284 Taxman 36  Ramprastha Buildwell (P.) Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center, Delhi; 283 Taxman 235 13  KRS Home Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre ;283 Taxman 413  Umkal Healthcare (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

house fabrication in addition to inspection at the vendors factory to whom the production or manufacture had been outsourced. Once the goods were received at the Noida unit, they were examined and assembled and tested. Rust protection was undertaken. Big assemblies were disassembled and repacked. Small assemblies were packed as such. Thereupon, the goods were exported from India and erected