BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

36(1)(va) Rs. 1,42,72,897/- r.w.s. 2(24)(x) Total Assessed Income Rs. 45,93,89,452/- 3.2 The claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) was denied and taken as ‘NIL’. Accordingly, the final assessment was completed on 29.07.2022 by the Ld. AO under section 143(3)/ 92CA/ 144C(13) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved thereby

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 1,08,85,080/- 2(24)(x), as discussed in para 2.5.4 Less Disallowance of deduction claimed NIL u/s. 80IA as discussed in para 2.5.5 Total assessed income Rs. 49,81,91,872/- 4.3 The claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) was denied and taken as ‘NIL’. Accordingly, the final assessment was completed

M/S. LAIRY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 153C. (iii) Judgment neither shows formulation of questions nor shows as to what all questions of law were raised by the Revenue. (iv) It does not considers its own judgment in SSP Aviation Ltd which was directly on section 153C. (v) It holds something not even indicated in the law & hence goes against the plain words

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MENARINI RAUNAQ PHARMA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

property documents, the degrees and related information is also in public domain. Though original degree certificate is given to the candidate, the authentication of the same along with details is available in the register. There is no provision, rule or regulation made by the university authorizing it to keep the degree related information as secret and prohibit the access

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NOKIA SOLUTIONS & NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS, NOKIA SIEMENS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

property documents, the degrees and related information is also in public domain. Though original degree certificate is given to the candidate, the authentication of the same along with details is available in the register. There is no provision, rule or regulation made by the university authorizing it to keep the degree related information as secret and prohibit the access

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

va) of section 28; (xiia) the fair market value of inventory referred to in clause (via) of section 28; ITA Nos. 7256 & 241/Del/2019 14 Shiv Kumar Jatia (xiii) any sum referred to in clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xiv) any sum referred to in clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

va) of section 28; (xiia) the fair market value of inventory referred to in clause (via) of section 28; ITA Nos. 7256 & 241/Del/2019 14 Shiv Kumar Jatia (xiii) any sum referred to in clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xiv) any sum referred to in clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 vs. M/S BOSE CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. L TO.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

House No. 243, Nawada, as well as the matriculation certificate of the appellant, issued by the Punjab CRL.A. 462/2016 Page 20 of 57 School Education Board, which were individually exhibited. She acknowledged, however, that it was not necessary for an applicant, applying for a PAN card, to visit the office personally, and that she could not, therefore, testify, positively, that

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

House Expenses’ on the basis of Tax Audit Report, in total disregard to the submissions of the assessee. General: 9. The lower authorities have acted arbitrarily in haste and has failed to fully appreciate the facts, circumstances and written submissions of the appellant on record and were not justified by not sharing their opinions or points of contentions so that

UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act in compliance of the order/directions dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Ld. DRP, is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making additions of Rs. 1

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

36(1)(va) of the Act? 5. Whether the CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified ITA Nos. 3257 & 3492/Del/2013 6 Dabur India Ltd. in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,05,088/- made by the AO on account of expenditure incurred at club? 6. Whether the CIT(A) under the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

36(1)(va) of the Act? 5. Whether the CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified ITA Nos. 3257 & 3492/Del/2013 6 Dabur India Ltd. in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,05,088/- made by the AO on account of expenditure incurred at club? 6. Whether the CIT(A) under the facts

DCIT,NEW DELHI vs. M/S. M2K ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2012-13

36(1)(va) of the Act is also governed by Section 43B of the Act? 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 3,23,435/- to Rs. 10,759/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. R 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (the Rule

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

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

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

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

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