ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

property (residential house) and thus the determination of annual value was not justified. E] Photocopy of Trading, Profit & Loss Account for the year ending 31st March, 2009 and Balance Sheet on that date along with Audit Report on the prescribed Form 3CD for the audit held u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Explanation/ confirmation of the parties

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

250 Advertisement and promotion for DC -1 GB CF card for promo 7,80,000 Advertisement and promotion for DC POS MERCHANDISING, PHOTOFAIR 19,02,556 Shows and seminar for copiers 18,94,916 Black & white and colour advertisement for copiers 18,53,126 Advertisement and promotion - Expenses BIS-PGA 3,12,236 Total 12,10,48,124 (The table

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

house property'. 10.7 Attention in this regard was also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd.: 265 CTR 250, wherein the Court held that in case the property is leased as a whole alongwith amenities/facilities, then the lease rental received therefrom would be taxable

SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property and income from other sources. During the assessee has declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,32,13,389/- on the total turnover of Rs. 6,47,26,704/- yielding a g.p. rate of 20.41% in comparison to the immediate preceding year’s gp rate of 23.52% on the total turnover of Rs. 4,93,62,1785/-. There

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RANJANA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

House property. AO has applied the provisions of section 23(1)(a) for making the additions of Rs.36,85,518/-. In contention to that the AR has submitted that the AO has not referred the provisions of section 23(1)(c) which says "where CO Nos. 250

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. AMITA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

House property. AO has applied the provisions of section 23(1)(a) for making the additions of Rs.36,85,518/-. In contention to that the AR has submitted that the AO has not referred the provisions of section 23(1)(c) which says "where CO Nos. 250

CENTRAL GOVT.EMP. CONSUMER COO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed and pending applications

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

250 /- and Nepali Currency amounting to Rs.108/- were also recovered. v. Subsequently, one Pramod Kumar entered the business premises of the Appellant. He was also subjected to search whereafter 01 kg. gold bar bearing foreign marking and certain documents were recovered. vi. The statements of the Appellant and all the aforementioned individuals were recorded under Section 40 of FERA

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of Order dated 09.12.2018 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Learned Assistant 2 Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle 19(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. AO”) under Sections 143(3) Act for assessment year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

250/- 7. The assessee explanation was that the trust has granted ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 7 scholarship of Rs.13.36 lakhs during the relevant previous year which was on account of payment of fees for doing higher education from London School of Economics and study charges of Smt. Aarti Rai in London. The Assessing Officer held that

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

250/- 7. The assessee explanation was that the trust has granted ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 7 scholarship of Rs.13.36 lakhs during the relevant previous year which was on account of payment of fees for doing higher education from London School of Economics and study charges of Smt. Aarti Rai in London. The Assessing Officer held that

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

250/- 7. The assessee explanation was that the trust has granted ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 7 scholarship of Rs.13.36 lakhs during the relevant previous year which was on account of payment of fees for doing higher education from London School of Economics and study charges of Smt. Aarti Rai in London. The Assessing Officer held that

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

250/- 7. The assessee explanation was that the trust has granted ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 7 scholarship of Rs.13.36 lakhs during the relevant previous year which was on account of payment of fees for doing higher education from London School of Economics and study charges of Smt. Aarti Rai in London. The Assessing Officer held that

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

250/- 7. The assessee explanation was that the trust has granted ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 7 scholarship of Rs.13.36 lakhs during the relevant previous year which was on account of payment of fees for doing higher education from London School of Economics and study charges of Smt. Aarti Rai in London. The Assessing Officer held that

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

250 of the Act allowing assessee deduction under section 80HHE amounting to Rs. 5,08,91,310/-. That the deduction allowed by the AO under Section 80HHE is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 10. Accordingly, the assessee intends to support the CIT(A) under Rule 27 on the ground that the resultant deduction under section 80HHE

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

250 of the Act allowing assessee deduction under section 80HHE amounting to Rs. 5,08,91,310/-. That the deduction allowed by the AO under Section 80HHE is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 10. Accordingly, the assessee intends to support the CIT(A) under Rule 27 on the ground that the resultant deduction under section 80HHE

ASHISH DHAM,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1 of 11 ITA No.-1953/Del/2016. Ashish Dham. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case giving proper opportunity of being heard is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,52,000/- under section 69 of the I.T. Act on account of cash

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

250 ITR 667 (Mad) where the court emphasized that “If the amount so received is not an amount which is excluded from the ambit of income under the Act, such receipt would constitute income. The fact that the amount was given to the recipient without any demand for the same by the recipient, or without any legal obligation

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

250 ITR 667 (Mad) where the court emphasized that “If the amount so received is not an amount which is excluded from the ambit of income under the Act, such receipt would constitute income. The fact that the amount was given to the recipient without any demand for the same by the recipient, or without any legal obligation