REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

36(1)(viii) of the Act.\n2.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Organic\nIndustries Ltd. vs. CCE in 106 STC 467(SC)(See CLC Page 134,\nPara 10-13) has explained the expression “derived from" and stated\nthat it means the original source of the product has to be found, arise\nfrom, originate in, trace

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

36(1)(viii) of the Act.\n2.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Organic\nIndustries Ltd. vs. CCE in 106 STC 467(SC)(See CLC Page 134,\nPara 10-13) has explained the expression “derived from" and stated\nthat it means the original source of the product has to be found, arise\nfrom, originate in, trace

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD., KASTURBA NAGAR

36(1)(viii) of the Act.\n2.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Organic\nIndustries Ltd. vs. CCE in 106 STC 467(SC)(See CLC Page 134,\nPara 10-13) has explained the expression “derived from" and stated\nthat it means the original source of the product has to be found, arise\nfrom, originate in, trace

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

36(1)(viii) of the Act.\n2.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Organic\nIndustries Ltd. vs. CCE in 106 STC 467(SC)(See CLC Page 134,\nPara 10-13) has explained the expression “derived from" and stated\nthat it means the original source of the product has to be found, arise\nfrom, originate in, trace

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

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

property, from which income was generated was the trust property; the sale deed in favour of the assessee showed that he purchased the property as a trustee and there was a subsequent deed creating a trust which recorded a corpus of Rs. 2 lakhs left in the hands of the assessee. In this case it was held that

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36(1)(viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income