ACIT, CIRCLE-51(1), NEW DELHI vs. NAVEEN BATRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2017-18

reassessment. 8 ITA No.32/Del/2020 & CO No.69/Del/2020 6.4.2 The provision of section 199l state that the amount of undisclosed income declared in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 199C shall not be included in the total income of declarant for any A.Y. under Income Tax Act. 6.4.3 The provision of section 199L state that "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

business income as rental income then the\nfollowing depreciation is found to be allowable to the assessee:\nRevised Computation of Income\nComputation as per Section 263\nAmount\nProfit & Loss Account\n170,920,004\nAdd:\nDepreciation as per Companies Act.\n100,054,347\nAdd:\nCSR Expenditure\n3,036,000\nGross Total\n274,010,351\nPage 28\nITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025\nAmbience Developers

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

business income as rental income then the\nfollowing depreciation is found to be allowable to the assessee:\n\n| Revised Computation of Income\n| Computation as per Section 263\n| Amount\n| Profit & Loss Account\n| 170,920,004\n| Add:\n| Depreciation as per Companies Act.\n| 100,054,347\n| Add:\n| CSR Expenditure

ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD vs. KESHAV MEDICHEM P.LTD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

business other than giving accommodation entries. As per report of the DDIT(Inv.) New Delhi M/s Keshav Medichem Pvt. Ltd. 1104, The Sphinex Tower, Gurugram, Haryana has received accommodation entries as per following details:- 5. No. Paper/Shell company providing entries Amount Bank A/c no. 1. M/s White Lotus Securities 670320110000269 1,57, 00, 100/- 2. Blue Sphire Health Care

RAJESH KUMAR,NARNAUL vs. ITO WARD - 2, NARNAUL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1465/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Rajesh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Krishan Nagar, Narnaul, Ward-2, Mohindergarh, Narnaul, Narnaul, Haryana-123001 Haryana-123001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Axqpk2406F Assessee By : Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca & Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2022

REASSESSMENT PROPOSED NOT ADDED BUT OTHER DEDUCTIONS REDUCED —NOT PERMISSIBLE —INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ss. 147, 148 10 Rajesh Kumar The assessee-company was engaged in the business

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Business and income from other sources e.g. interest. After filing of Return of Income with Income Tax Officer, Ward 65(1), New Delhi, the Assessing Officer (Income Tax Officer) transferred the Return of Income along with other document such as notices issued till date, proceeding sheet etc. (assessment folder) to Income Tax Officer, Ward 65(5), New Delhi

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Business and income from other sources e.g. interest. After filing of Return of Income with Income Tax Officer, Ward 65(1), New Delhi, the Assessing Officer (Income Tax Officer) transferred the Return of Income along with other document such as notices issued till date, proceeding sheet etc. (assessment folder) to Income Tax Officer, Ward 65(5), New Delhi

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Dcit, C/O-Anil Jain Dd & Co., 611, Surya Central Circle-14, Kiran Building, 19 K.G.Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapg2240G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Rahul Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2024

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

HALLEX APPLIED POWER PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

income of Rs.68,76,640/-. The AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 11.10.2017 which was duly served upon the assessee. The AO noted that the assessee was engaged in the business of installation of generators on sites. 3.1. The reasons recorded by the AO for the issue of notice u/s 148 is reproduced under

SATYAWAN,BHIWANI vs. ITO WARD-02, BHIWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 3423/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyawan, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Shri Gopi, Vs. V & Po : Baliali, Ward : 2, Tehsil : Bawani Khera, Bhiwani, Haryana – 127 032. Bhiwani. Pan No. Cgvps7365F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Income Tax (Appeals), Hisar [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] dated 27.12.2018 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee in his appeal raised the following grounds:- I.T.A. No. 3423/Del/2019 “1. That the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the ad hoc addition of Rs.886503.00 on the ground of disallowance 25 percent

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

income would be entitled to 100% exemption or deduction under sections 10A/10B and as such the entire profits derived from the business of the undertaking should be taken into consideration, while computing the eligible deduction under section 10B/10A of the Act, by applying the provisions of section 10B(4) of the Act. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Karnataka

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock of 'H' and amount

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock of 'H' and amount

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock of 'H' and amount

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock of 'H' and amount

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

reassessment proceedings also held that acquisition of shares which were held as investments at cost price which was lower than the book value computed as per net worth of the companies, did not give rise to any business income

JAYPEE CEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Jaypee Cement Vs. Acit, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Noida Budh Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacz2168D

business of manufacturing and sale of cement, manufacturing and sale of asbestos sheets, heavy engineering workshop M/s. Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd and foundry. The assessee filed its return of income electronically for AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring loss of Rs. 641,08,95,408/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 01.10.2019 declaring loss

PAMAS COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 19(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Business income from trading in Commodities (9,46,580 – 4,07,651)(above) 5,38,929.00 (iii) Gross Total Income u/s 80B(5) of the Act 1,06,586.00 (iv) Set off of brought forward loss 1,06,586.00 (v) Total income u/s 2(45) r/w section 14 of the Act Nil______ 4. Thus, the return of income was filed