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

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

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

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

MUKUL RANI THAKUR,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 30.12.2022 passed u/s 143 43(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Y Assessment Year 2021- 22. 2. The grounds

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL HOMES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties, including the project known as "Aqua Casa", along with corporate guarantees and pledges, thereby creating an enforceable security interest in favor of the lender. That as per the terms of the Facility Agreement, the repayment obligation in respect of the principal amount was to commence only after the expiry of 24 months from the respective dates of disbursement. That

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

1), read with sections 22 and 56, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-\nBusiness income -Chargeable as (Rental income) Assessment year 2011-\n12 Whether rental income received by assessee from letting out building\nalong with other amenities in an industrial park would be chargeable to\ntax under head 'income from business and profession and not as 'income\nfrom house property

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, and then secondly, by computing income in terms of section 92 of the Act, by making addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment, if warranted. The additional ground raised under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, is, therefore, dismissed

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house research and development activities related to its business at facilities approved by Department of Science and Industrial Research, Government of India in Form 3CM under section 35(2AB) of Act for period from 14.9.1999 to 31.3.2002. During assessment year, assessee had incurred total expenditure of Rs.3,23,85,565 on such research and development (Rs.2,81,98,472 revenue

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house research and development activities related to its business at facilities approved by Department of Science and Industrial Research, Government of India in Form 3CM under section 35(2AB) of Act for period from 14.9.1999 to 31.3.2002. During assessment year, assessee had incurred total expenditure of Rs.3,23,85,565 on such research and development (Rs.2,81,98,472 revenue

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house research and development activities related to its business at facilities approved by Department of Science and Industrial Research, Government of India in Form 3CM under section 35(2AB) of Act for period from 14.9.1999 to 31.3.2002. During assessment year, assessee had incurred total expenditure of Rs.3,23,85,565 on such research and development (Rs.2,81,98,472 revenue

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CETRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

1), read with sections 22 and 56, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-\nBusiness income -Chargeable as (Rental income) Assessment year 2011-\n12 Whether rental income received by assessee from letting out building\nalong with other amenities in an industrial park would be chargeable to\ntax under head 'income from business and profession and not as 'income\nfrom house property