COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

losses survived to be carried forward for assessment year 1993-94 and, therefore, the re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1993-94 were without any foundation and jurisdiction. 2. The following question of law arises for the consideration of this Court: “Whether ITAT was correct in law in quashing the reassessment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

forward business loss or depreciation, whichever less is as below. 3 I.T.A.NO.2673/Del/2011 FY Business Loss Depreciation Net profit / Lesser of the (loss) two 1997-98 5,05,70,134 92,28,83,320 (87,23,13,186) Nil, Since here is no business loss

RISHI GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

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

carry forward of loss from earlier Assessment Year by reassessing the issue of Short Term Capital Loss incurred by the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

carry forward unabsorbed brought forward depreciation and business losses of Rs.2,21,66,35,511/- instead of Rs.2,05,05,11,020/-.” Grounds raised in appeal for A.Y. 2007-08: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,36,28,506/- made on account

ANANT RAJ LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2,CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

reassessed after giving an adequate opportunity to the appellant to represent and being heard in the matter. I.T.A. Nos.5169 & 5677/DEL/2017 3 iv. That the grounds of appeal submitted hereinabove be read with prejudice to one another in cases and circumstances wherever the context so requires.” 3. The brief facts and the background of the case, apropos the issues raised

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

reassessed after giving an adequate opportunity to the appellant to represent and being heard in the matter. I.T.A. Nos.5169 & 5677/DEL/2017 3 iv. That the grounds of appeal submitted hereinabove be read with prejudice to one another in cases and circumstances wherever the context so requires.” 3. The brief facts and the background of the case, apropos the issues raised

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notice was struck down. This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. decided on 09.04.2012. In this case the precise question which arose under Section 10A was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of the unit

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notice was struck down. This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. decided on 09.04.2012. In this case the precise question which arose under Section 10A was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of the unit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment proceedings were completed vide order dated 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 16th March, 2005 at a total income of Rs. 18,75,86,422/- before set off of brought forward losses. On appeal before the CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) granted relief. The Assessing Officer while passing consequential order to the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment proceedings were completed vide order dated 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 16th March, 2005 at a total income of Rs. 18,75,86,422/- before set off of brought forward losses. On appeal before the CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) granted relief. The Assessing Officer while passing consequential order to the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment proceedings were completed vide order dated 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 16th March, 2005 at a total income of Rs. 18,75,86,422/- before set off of brought forward losses. On appeal before the CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) granted relief. The Assessing Officer while passing consequential order to the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment proceedings were completed vide order dated 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 16th March, 2005 at a total income of Rs. 18,75,86,422/- before set off of brought forward losses. On appeal before the CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) granted relief. The Assessing Officer while passing consequential order to the order

M/S. NOVA IRON & STEEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

carry forward of loss claimed under section/72(1) of the Act. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts. The ground raised in appeal is dismissed.” 6. The assessee moved an application for admission of additional ground of appeal which reads as under : “That the order dated 20-01-2014 passed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FRIGOGLASS INDIA PRIVATE LTD., GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal and Assessee’s Cross objection stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

reassessment proceedings on the ground that assessee had claimed and allowed set off of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years stating as under: "The benefit of carrying forward the depreciation was, in one sense, limited by the pre-existing ruling that can be done for eight years. All that amendment did with effect from 1-4-2002 was to remove

FATEH CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ADDL. CIT, MEERUT

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

carry forward of the same and set off of the said excessive application in the AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09. However, the ld, CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee, ignoring the fact assessments for the A Ys 2005-06 to 2007-08 were completed uls 143(3) read with sec. 147 of the Act. The real controversy, therefore

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. ARCHANA SALUJA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the three Appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

forward of losses qua each of assessments under appeals i.e 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07?” 3. On the other hand, the ld. AM proposed the following two questions:- “(a) Whether, when we are presented with two precedents of equal strength from higher court(s), and specially when the earlier precedent has already been considered in the later

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI ANKUSH SALUJA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the three Appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

forward of losses qua each of assessments under appeals i.e 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07?” 3. On the other hand, the ld. AM proposed the following two questions:- “(a) Whether, when we are presented with two precedents of equal strength from higher court(s), and specially when the earlier precedent has already been considered in the later

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SALUJA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the three Appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

forward of losses qua each of assessments under appeals i.e 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07?” 3. On the other hand, the ld. AM proposed the following two questions:- “(a) Whether, when we are presented with two precedents of equal strength from higher court(s), and specially when the earlier precedent has already been considered in the later

MAHUGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anandee Nath Misshra

forward of losses qua each of assessments under appeals i.e 2004- 05, 2005-06 and 2006-07?” 3. On the other hand, the ld. AM proposed the following two questions:- “(a) Whether, when we are presented with two precedents of equal strength from higher court(s), and specially when the earlier precedent has already been considered in the later