COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

43A, 10% of the gross receipt of a non-resident 14 ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023 & Ors. engaged in the business of providing services or facilities or supplying plant & machinery on hire which is used in prospecting for or extraction of mineral oils shall be deemed to be the profits & gains of business. Thus, this section has rightly been contended

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

43A, 10% of the gross receipt of a non-resident 14 ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023 & Ors. engaged in the business of providing services or facilities or supplying plant & machinery on hire which is used in prospecting for or extraction of mineral oils shall be deemed to be the profits & gains of business. Thus, this section has rightly been contended

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum ofRs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum ofRs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum ofRs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

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)

43A of the Act 4. Disallowance of proportionate 17 67 88 271/- depreciation u/s 32 of the Act 5. Disallowance of proportionate 2 36 12 51 643/- depreciation u/s 32 of the Act Total 9,59,11,18,274/- 3. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed concise grounds of appeal:- “01. That

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

43A of the 1948\nAct, a contract was entered into between the assessee and the State\nElectricity Board for supply of the surplus electricity by the former to the\nlatter. The price for supply of such electricity by the assessee to the State\nElectricity Board was fixed at Rs.2.32 per unit as per the contract. This\nprice is, therefore

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

43A of the 1948\nAct, a contract was entered into between the assessee and the State\nElectricity Board for supply of the surplus electricity by the former to the\nlatter. The price for supply of such electricity by the assessee to the State\nElectricity Board was fixed at Rs.2.32 per unit as per the contract. This\nprice is, therefore

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

43A of the 1948\nAct, a contract was entered into between the assessee and the State\nElectricity Board for supply of the surplus electricity by the former to the\nlatter. The price for supply of such electricity by the assessee to the State\nElectricity Board was fixed at Rs.2.32 per unit as per the contract. This\nprice is, therefore

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

43A of the 1948\nAct, a contract was entered into between the assessee and the State\nElectricity Board for supply of the surplus electricity by the former to the\nlatter. The price for supply of such electricity by the assessee to the State\nElectricity Board was fixed at Rs.2.32 per unit as per the contract. This\nprice is, therefore

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

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

penalty proceedings u/s 270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

penalty proceedings u/s 270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

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

penalty proceedings u/s 270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

43A of the Act, the Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP have erred in not allowing the depreciation on unrealized foreign exchange loss on capital creditors amounting to Rs. 31,830,359 in view of the position taken by Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP in the earlier years. 18. That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred