BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject-matter of the appeal

ITO, WARD-52(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARTI JINDAL , DELHI

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

2. The AO in his recorded reasons has stated that he had called for the case record of GLEBE and has perused the same. It is unbelievable that he did not note the factum of appeal filed by GLEBE before the CIT(A). The reasons are, thus, recorded by overlooking very important aspect regarding pending appeal. It is accepted

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

251 12 VAT paid on purchases 2,960,787 13 Sample courier charges 11,064,039 14 Gym charges 355,988 15 Sample expenses for manufacture, suppliers and trade shows. 23,396,979 16 Export forwarding and clearing expenses 3,569,537 17 Misc. Expenses 3,960,471 18 Sales incentive expenses 2,869,355 19 Warehouse running and maintenance

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

reassess the income of the assessee for the AY 2013-14 after due application of mind independently 5. Ld. CIT (A) observed the purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

251 (Delhi) [13-07-2023]) has\ncited many instances of inaccuracy/mistake/error/lapses, etc. in the approval under\nsection 153D of the Act and the details mentioned in the assessment order to hold that\nthere was non-application of mind of the Jt. / Addl. CIT while granting approval under\nsection 153D of the Act. However, here in present case

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

251, Little Falls Drive, Circle-1(1)(1) Wilmington Delaware, USA, New Delhi. USA 19808 PAN AATCA699SL (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Manish Kanth, Advocate Ms. Deepashree Rao, Advocate and Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, Advocate Department by: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.05.2023 Date of 01.08.2023 pronouncement

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

251, Little Falls Drive, Circle-1(1)(1) Wilmington Delaware, USA, New Delhi. USA 19808 PAN AATCA699SL (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Manish Kanth, Advocate Ms. Deepashree Rao, Advocate and Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, Advocate Department by: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.05.2023 Date of 01.08.2023 pronouncement

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

251 (Delhi) [13-07-2023]) has\ncited many instances of inaccuracy/mistake/error/lapses, etc. in the approval under\nsection 153D of the Act and the details mentioned in the assessment order to hold that\nthere was non-application of mind of the Jt. / Addl. CIT while granting approval under\nsection 153D of the Act. However, here in present case

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

251 ITR 263 upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, stating that there can be no addition in the hands of a company for moneys received towards share capital. The Court held that, if necessary, the Revenue may reopen the assessment of the shareholders to bring to tax the alleged undisclosed amount.  CIT v. ARL Infratech

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment u/s 148 qua genuineness of unsecured loan as well as purchases disclosed, considered and accepted during the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2013-14 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 10th December 2024 passed by the CIT(A) as well as order dated

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

reassessment proceedings are thus necessitated. 3.2 In compliance with the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the assessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 were initiated basis the consolidated revised return filed by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed various submissions/ details as required by ITA No. 2212/Del/2023 Indus Towers Ltd the AO. After considering

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

reassessment proceedings are thus necessitated. 3.2 In compliance with the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the assessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 were initiated basis the consolidated revised return filed by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed various submissions/ details as required by ITA No. 2212/Del/2023 Indus Towers Ltd the AO. After considering

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

reassessment proceedings are thus necessitated. 3.2 In compliance with the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the assessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 were initiated basis the consolidated revised return filed by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed various submissions/ details as required by ITA No. 2212/Del/2023 Indus Towers Ltd the AO. After considering