DR. PRASHANT AGGARWAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

house property, profits and gains from profession. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computerized Assisted Selection of Scrutiny (CASS) and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued and served within the stipulated period. In the scrutiny assessment completed under section

DCIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. GOODEARTH FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal Nos

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(E), Vs. Goodearth Foundation, Circle-1(1), Eicher House, Civic Centre, 12, Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatg5663R

House, Civic Centre, 12, Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. PAN: AAATG5663R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepika Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 4th March

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. S.S. MOTA SINGH (NILA) CHARITABLE TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito(Exemptions), Vs. S.S. Mota Singh(Nila) Ward-2(1),New Delhi Charitable Trust, C-103, 10Th Floor, Himalaya House, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaats3761J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.Dr Respondent By None Present

House, K.G. Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAATS3761J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.DR Respondent by None present Date of hearing 15.01.2019 Date of pronouncement 28.01.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 25th March, 2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-40, New Delhi, [in short

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CURLS & CURVES INDIA LTD.

property and carried on land developing business. The whole development was not carried out when the plot was sold. The appellant credited Rs.43,692 and also estimated Rs.24,809 as the expenditure for development to be carried out. There was no actual disbursement of the expenditure. It was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that “inasmuch as the liability

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. CURLS & CURVES INDIA LTD.

property and carried on land developing business. The whole development was not carried out when the plot was sold. The appellant credited Rs.43,692 and also estimated Rs.24,809 as the expenditure for development to be carried out. There was no actual disbursement of the expenditure. It was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that “inasmuch as the liability

SYED KHALID SAIFULLAH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4744/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Syed Khalid Saifullah, Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 4, F-8, Shaheen Bag, Ward-28(4), 40, Futa Road, Abul Fazel New Delhi-110002 Enclave, Part-Ii, Zamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025 Gupta Aggarwal Sharda & Jain, Chartered Accountants, D-178, Ground Floor, Ramprastha Colony, Ghaziabad-201011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaxps2952G Assessee By : Sh. Manish Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

property, details of payment received and material purchased along with bills or any other evidence to establish that the above receipt is a contractual receipt. In compliance, it was explained to the AO that assessee has undertaken the above civil construction activities only in the financial year 2010-11 and no such activities is being conducted thereafter. Confirmation from