MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

11 Act, it has been found that the amount exceeds the disclosure made by the applicant under Section 245C(1) of the IT Act. If the assessee would have made the true and correct disclosure and thereafter on determination and passing the order under Section 245D(4) of the IT Act, the amount determined does not exceed the amount disclosed

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

reassessment order dated 19.12.2017, on the grounds that Accumulation of 15% was to be computed on the basis of gross receipts and not net income. (3) In any case, the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of method adopted by the ld. Assessing Officer, in computing 'accumulation' under section

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

reassessment order dated 19.12.2017, on the grounds that Accumulation of 15% was to be computed on the basis of gross receipts and not net income. (3) In any case, the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of method adopted by the ld. Assessing Officer, in computing 'accumulation' under section

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

11 Motherson Sumi Systems Limited vs. DCIT income would be entitled to 100% exemption or deduction under section 10A and 10B of the Act. 11.2 The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has also affirmed the view expressed by the first Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

11 of 32 taken care of by sub-section (4), but when the entire Section was substituted and recast by the Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 1st April, 2001, sub-section (4) became sub- section (6) but the essence and substance of the provisions of these sub-sections remained the same. The effect was that from 1st April

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

11 of 32 taken care of by sub-section (4), but when the entire Section was substituted and recast by the Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 1st April, 2001, sub-section (4) became sub- section (6) but the essence and substance of the provisions of these sub-sections remained the same. The effect was that from 1st April

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

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 be imposed, by an order in writing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. KUBER KHADYAN PVT. LTD., NEW DLEHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).” 11 ITA No.4223/Del./2018; 4225/Del./2018 & 4226/Del./20118 5.8 In view of the detailed observation, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that in the case, no incriminating material was found during the course

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. KUBER KHADYAN PVT. LTD., NEW DLEHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).” 11 ITA No.4223/Del./2018; 4225/Del./2018 & 4226/Del./20118 5.8 In view of the detailed observation, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that in the case, no incriminating material was found during the course

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires'. Since the time limit for passing of the order by the TPO is not direct but is linked with the time limit as per section 153, the legislature did not insert any sunset clause in section 153, which would have otherwise made the provision of sub-section

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires'. Since the time limit for passing of the order by the TPO is not direct but is linked with the time limit as per section 153, the legislature did not insert any sunset clause in section 153, which would have otherwise made the provision of sub-section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A