VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s Quantum Appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act restored back by ITAT. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the order of the Judicial Member of ITAT, wherein he has directed the CIT(A) to decide on merit the issue involved in regard to the allowing deduction of Revised Claim u/s. 80I. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INTERNATIONAL STEEL SERVICE INC., NEW DELHI

In the result, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Adit, Circle-1(2), International Vs. International Steel Service Inc., Taxation, Room No. 410, Drum 79, Qutab View Apartment, S.J.S. Shaped Building, I.P. Estate, New Marg, New Delhi Delhi (Pan: Aaafi7664J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 9(1)(vii) as fee for technical services & assessee failed to substantiate its explanation for not offering the said income for 2 ITA No. 702/Del/2012, AY: 2007-08 International Steel Service Inc. taxation at the time of penalty proceedings as well as the time of appellate proceedings. b. Without appreciating that the said addition would have escaped taxation

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)

271 (1) © of the act. Assessee cannot be aggrieved with the above ground that it is merely an initiation of the penalty proceedings and the assessee would be given a proper opportunity for raising all its contention before the penalty is levied. In view of this ground number 1 and 7 of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Penalty proceedings us 271(1(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income.” 3.2. Against the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) unit-3, Coimbatore, deleted the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act in respect of LTCG claimed exempt

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Penalty proceedings us 271(1(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income.” 3.2. Against the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) unit-3, Coimbatore, deleted the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act in respect of LTCG claimed exempt

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifically left the question of retrospectivity to be decided in other appeals filed by the Revenue. We thus have proceeded

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifically left the question of retrospectivity to be decided in other appeals filed by the Revenue. We thus have proceeded

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

80I-A claimed\nby the appellant as indicated in the preceding discussion.\"\n16. The Tribunal, concurred with the aforesaid findings recorded\nby the CIT (A), by taking support of the decision of a Co-ordinate\nBench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd. v. CIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 268. As regards section 80IA

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

80I-A claimed\nby the appellant as indicated in the preceding discussion.\n16. The Tribunal, concurred with the aforesaid findings recorded\nby the CIT (A), by taking support of the decision of a Co-ordinate\nBench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd. v. CIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 268. As regards section 80IA

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

80I-A claimed\nby the appellant as indicated in the preceding discussion.\"\n\n16. The Tribunal, concurred with the aforesaid findings recorded\nby the CIT (A), by taking support of the decision of a Co-ordinate\nBench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd. v. CIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 268. As regards section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NTPC LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

80I and 80IA without allocating any expenditure to the gas unit to steam unit. The ld. CIT(A) has duly thrashed this issue in the light of the findings returned by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) 14562/2006 dated 10.01.2013 in assessees own case for AY 2000- 01 wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that both

NTPC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

80I and 80IA without allocating any expenditure to the gas unit to steam unit. The ld. CIT(A) has duly thrashed this issue in the light of the findings returned by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) 14562/2006 dated 10.01.2013 in assessees own case for AY 2000- 01 wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that both

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

penalty leviable thereon. Accordingly, income accrued in the succeeding year. Assuming while denying he submitted that it is respectfully submitted that the adjustment being revenue neutral, would not affect tax liability of the appellant. In the past history of similar addition is submitted that aforesaid issue is covered by the decision of ITAT in appellant‘s own case