DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. M/S INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY

house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word „income‟ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the 2014:DHC:6159-DB ITA No. 240/2014+ connected appeals Page 5 of 20 trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made

ISHWAR CHANDER PAHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanishwar Chander Pahuja, Vs. Acit, Circle 19 (1), C/O Sumer Garg & Co., Cas New Delhi. E-501A, Itl Northex Tower, Plot No.A – 9, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aafpp4275M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Order : 06.09.2024 Order The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing The Claim Of The Assessee Of Having Earned Agricultural Income At Rs.23,36,957/- & The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Treating The Same As Bogus Without Making Any Verification In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

house property and income from other sources. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.23,36,957/- under section 2(1A) of the Act and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(1) of the Act, thus the assessee has claimed tax rebate on agricultural income of Rs.6,01,097/-. The Assessing Officer further

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

44A of the Act. 22. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records. The provisions of s. 44 read as under : 10 ITA No.485/Del./2016 "44. Insurance business.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head ‘Interest on securities’, ‘Income from house property

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

44A of the Act. 22. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records. The provisions of s. 44 read as under: "44. Insurance business.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head ‘Interest on securities’, ‘Income from house property’, ‘Capital gains’ or ‘Income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION

Section 11(1). . 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). . 7. The controversy in question

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. TCI FOUNDATION 10 RAM BAGH AZAD MARKET ROHTAK ROAD NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). 7. The controversy in question

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). 7. The controversy in question

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

44A of the Act. 22. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records. The provisions of s. 44 read as under : "44. Insurance business.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head ‘Interest on securities’, ‘Income from house property’, ‘Capital gains’ or ‘Income

VENUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year: 2009-10 Venus Financial Services Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, (Now Merged With Avantha Realty Ltd.) Circle 17(1), Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv3258L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent By: Shri J.P. Chandrekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 .07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 :09.2015 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1) That The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts.

House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACV3258L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent by: Shri J.P. Chandrekar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01 .07.2015 Date of pronouncement: 28 :09.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has impugned First Appellate Order on the following grounds: 1) That the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals