COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

801B(10) deduction can be availed by an undertaking developing and building housing projects- approved before 31.03.2008 by the local authority. Such undertaking should have embarked on construction of the housing project on or after 01-10-1998. 100% deduction can be availed of the profits derived from construction of such housing projects. The explanation to Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

801B(10) deduction can be availed by an undertaking developing and building housing projects- approved before 31.03.2008 by the local authority. Such undertaking should have embarked on construction of the housing project on or after 01-10-1998. 100% deduction can be availed of the profits derived from construction of such housing projects. The explanation to Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

801B of the IT Act although furnished Form 10CCB, it was held that even where there was a claim by way of an application without filing a revised return and in such a situation, deduction could not be disallowed" The law developed, post Goetz (India)'s case, has made it abundantly clear that an assessee is entitled to make fresh

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

house DCIT Vs. Deepti Agarwal, ITA No. 3609/Del/2013 & CO No. 234/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) property. Assessee filed her return of income on 30.09.2009 at Rs. 5472734/-. During the year the assessee has business at Delhi, Ghaziabad and Dehradun. In Delhi and Ghaziabad assessee is carrying on trading activities, whereas in Dehradun assessee is carrying on manufacturing activity. The assessee

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

9 section 147 of the Act is concerned. In the appeal against order passed by CIT under section 263, the appellate authorities would not, it is submitted, consider the issue of jurisdiction of the assessing officer in passing the impugned reassessment order under section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee would be rendered remediless qua the jurisdictional issue raised

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

property could have been used only as a residence. 3. (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in- law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,08,15,000/-/u/s. 14A. (b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in-law by net considering the fact that the assessee is not maintaining

DCIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JINDAL SAW LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

property could have been used only as a residence. 3. (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in- law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,08,15,000/-/u/s. 14A. (b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in-law by net considering the fact that the assessee is not maintaining

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

property could have been used only as a residence. 3. (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in- law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,08,15,000/-/u/s. 14A. (b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in-law by net considering the fact that the assessee is not maintaining

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

section 801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty

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

section 801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

801B and 80IC of the Act without further allocation of the head office & other expenses to various units eligible for such deduction. 7. On the fact and .in the circumstances of the ease the C1T (A) has erred in the addition of Rs. 4,09,871/- in respect of belated payment of employees contribution to ESI which was treated

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

801B and 80IC of the Act without further allocation of the head office & other expenses to various units eligible for such deduction. 7. On the fact and .in the circumstances of the ease the C1T (A) has erred in the addition of Rs. 4,09,871/- in respect of belated payment of employees contribution to ESI which was treated

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

801B and 80IC of the Act without further allocation of the head office & other expenses to various units eligible for such deduction. 7. On the fact and .in the circumstances of the ease the C1T (A) has erred in the addition of Rs. 4,09,871/- in respect of belated payment of employees contribution to ESI which was treated

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

801B and 80IC of the Act without further allocation of the head office & other expenses to various units eligible for such deduction. 7. On the fact and .in the circumstances of the ease the C1T (A) has erred in the addition of Rs. 4,09,871/- in respect of belated payment of employees contribution to ESI which was treated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

Properties P Ltd. (T & AP) 23) It is well established that even if it is presumed that two views are possible, the assessee cannot be faulted for adopting a view favourable to him in filing in his return. In this connection reliance is placed on Hon'bie Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. OnkarS. Kunwar

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

housed. The expenditure for the steam, which is\nutilised in generation of power, and the balance steam which is\nutilised by the chemical plant can be determined by distributing the\nsame in proportion to the heat value (Enthalpy) of the inlet steam\nand the outlet steam of the turbine. As per the details available on\nrecord the heat value

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

housed. The expenditure for the steam, which is\nutilised in generation of power, and the balance steam which is\nutilised by the chemical plant can be determined by distributing the\nsame in proportion to the heat value (Enthalpy) of the inlet steam\nand the outlet steam of the turbine. As per the details available on\nrecord the heat value

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

housed. The expenditure for the steam, which is\nutilised in generation of power, and the balance steam which is\nutilised by the chemical plant can be determined by distributing the\nsame in proportion to the heat value (Enthalpy) of the inlet steam\nand the outlet steam of the turbine. As per the details available on\nrecord the heat value