ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SHIPRA ESTATE LTD., & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

Properties (supra) not only noted that the expression 'housing project' is not defined under s. 80-IB(10) of the Act but also noted that the same was not defined even under the relevant local regulations before it, viz. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 and the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court

M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

Properties (supra) not only noted that the expression 'housing project' is not defined under s. 80-IB(10) of the Act but also noted that the same was not defined even under the relevant local regulations before it, viz. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 and the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

house Property and framing the impugned reassessment order are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred by limitation, contrary to facts & law and based upon recording of incorrect facts and finding, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. 10. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing and Finance Ltd. (2009) 320 ITR 157 (MP HC) 6.7 Lastly, Ld. AR of the assessee stated that Show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 14.03.2014 was received by the Assessee only at 5 PM on Friday, 21st March 2014. Date of hearing was fixed on 25.03.2014 in Kanpur. However, the Ld. CIT was not available

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing and Finance Ltd. (2009) 320 ITR 157 (MP HC) 6.7 Lastly, Ld. AR of the assessee stated that Show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 14.03.2014 was received by the Assessee only at 5 PM on Friday, 21st March 2014. Date of hearing was fixed on 25.03.2014 in Kanpur. However, the Ld. CIT was not available

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing and Finance Ltd. (2009) 320 ITR 157 (MP HC) 6.7 Lastly, Ld. AR of the assessee stated that Show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 14.03.2014 was received by the Assessee only at 5 PM on Friday, 21st March 2014. Date of hearing was fixed on 25.03.2014 in Kanpur. However, the Ld. CIT was not available

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing and Finance Ltd. (2009) 320 ITR 157 (MP HC) 6.7 Lastly, Ld. AR of the assessee stated that Show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 14.03.2014 was received by the Assessee only at 5 PM on Friday, 21st March 2014. Date of hearing was fixed on 25.03.2014 in Kanpur. However, the Ld. CIT was not available

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing and Finance Ltd. (2009) 320 ITR 157 (MP HC) 6.7 Lastly, Ld. AR of the assessee stated that Show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 14.03.2014 was received by the Assessee only at 5 PM on Friday, 21st March 2014. Date of hearing was fixed on 25.03.2014 in Kanpur. However, the Ld. CIT was not available

ACIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. WINDLASS STEEL CRAFT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5506/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Windlass Steel Craft, Circle-1, 11-A, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafw0958M Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

House property of Shri Pradeep Windlass. Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that total debit on account of payment of interest is shown in the books of accounts at Rs. 1,41,87,428/- which clearly shows that there was no interest free fund available with the assessee and as such the interest amount

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

house property”, “profits and gains of business and professions”, “capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

house property”, “profits and gains of business and professions”, “capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

property associated with the sale, foreign currency risks and alternatives realistically available to the buyer and seller the learned transfer pricing officer has used the average sale price for the financial year 2013 – 14 available at the Indian energy exchange. Therefore there cannot be much of the grievance when the assessee also charges the same rate for the whole year

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

house property, profits and gains from business, capital gains and income from other sources, the total is arrived at and it is from this total that the losses of the current year and the brought forward losses from the past years are to be set off. The resultant figure gives the gross total income of the assessee from which deductions

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

house property, profits and gains from business, capital gains and income from other sources, the total is arrived at and it is from this total that the losses of the current year and the brought forward losses from the past years are to be set off. The resultant figure gives the gross total income of the assessee from which deductions

M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

80I and 80IB. Section 80IA(4) prescribes about the deduction available to a developer who develops infrastructure facilities. In view of the amendment inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000, the deduction u/s. 80IA is available to those assessees who are ‘investing and developing infrastructure facility’ and not to persons who simply executes ‘works- contracts’. Explanation

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.

Properties (P) Ltd. : 343 ITR 141 (Del.). (c) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del.). (d) CIT v. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF): 306 ITR 173 (Del.). (e) CIT v. Motor & General Finance Ltd.: 184 Taxman 465 (Del.). (f) CIT v. ITW India Ltd.: 377 ITR 195 (P&H). (g) Oriental Carpet Mfrs. (India

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LVP FOODS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

80I(2)(iv) and there should be employer - employee relationship between the assessee and the worker. The AR has brought to my notice the subsequent decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.5045/2010 dated 15.11.2011) wherein, in the context of section 80IB(2)(iv) for A.Y. 1999-2000, the High Court

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

property associated with the sale, foreign currency risks and\nalternatives realistically available to the buyer and seller\nthe learned transfer pricing officer has used the average sale price for the\nfinancial year 2013 – 14 available at the Indian energy exchange. Therefore\nthere cannot be much of the grievance when the assessee also charges the\nsame rate for the whole year