SAMPARK HOTELS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

section 115J is relevant and not the income determined under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. 17. The Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has further recorded the finding that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the bona fide of the explanation given by the assessee and the disclosure made

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. 14.3 The ld DRP has confirmed the addition made by the ld AO. 14.4 The ld counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee (alongwith its erstwhile entities except one entity) had filed a demerger scheme for transfer of their Passive Infrastructure („PI‟) assets to Vodafone Infrastructure Limited („VInfL

M/S RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In appeal, learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty in relation to the addition made on account of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Learned CIT(A), however, sustained the penalty on account of inclusion of capital gain on sale of shares of Dabur Pharma in the profit and loss account

NHPC LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu, Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. (Disallowance : Rs.33,06,48,390/-) 12. It is also an admitted fact that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the rival contentions on the issue of allowability of provisions of bad and doubtful debts has allowed the appeal of the assessee. “9.3 As far as the disallowance of provision

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

271/- being foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee on payment of foreign exchange to BHEL as per contract for acquisition of capital asset from abroad treating the same as capital expenditure ignoring the provisions of section 37 as well as section 43AA of the Income Tax Act r/w ICDs-VI issued u/s 145(2) of the Act. 08. That

MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

115J." The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue. Thus, this decision is also on the same issue taking contrary view. Under such circumstances the issue before us is as to follow which decision. Ld. CIT(DR) in course of hearing filed the decision of Tribunal in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. and referred to para

M/S NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 North Delhi Power Ltd., Vs Acit, Range – 13, Grid Sub Station Building, Delhi Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R & Ita No.31/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Range – 13, Vs North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.D. Kapila,Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Shri Pravesh Sharma, Advocate Revenue By Ms Shefali Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 8.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

u/s 14A in the book profits before the learned CIT(A), the assessee also advanced an alternate plea that as a matter of fact they have disclosed a sum of Rs.52.11 crore in the earlier year as additional amount receivable and paid tax on it. So also it was the plea of the 5 assessee that in the Asstt. Year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 North Delhi Power Ltd., Vs Acit, Range – 13, Grid Sub Station Building, Delhi Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R & Ita No.31/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Range – 13, Vs North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.D. Kapila,Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Shri Pravesh Sharma, Advocate Revenue By Ms Shefali Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 8.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

u/s 14A in the book profits before the learned CIT(A), the assessee also advanced an alternate plea that as a matter of fact they have disclosed a sum of Rs.52.11 crore in the earlier year as additional amount receivable and paid tax on it. So also it was the plea of the 5 assessee that in the Asstt. Year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NORTH DELHI POWER LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 North Delhi Power Ltd., Vs Acit, Range – 13, Grid Sub Station Building, Delhi Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R & Ita No.31/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Range – 13, Vs North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.D. Kapila,Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Shri Pravesh Sharma, Advocate Revenue By Ms Shefali Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 8.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

u/s 14A in the book profits before the learned CIT(A), the assessee also advanced an alternate plea that as a matter of fact they have disclosed a sum of Rs.52.11 crore in the earlier year as additional amount receivable and paid tax on it. So also it was the plea of the 5 assessee that in the Asstt. Year

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or rescind any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or rescind any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 22.4 Thus, by virtue of Section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of the said Act read along with the DERC regulations shall override the provisions of all other Acts, including the Companies Act, 1956. 22.5 Corresponding to the aforesaid, even the Companies Act, 1956 (section 616) and the Companies