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. 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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SANGEETA MISHRA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

255(4) of the Act on 22.04.2003, and the matter was referred back to the Bench for decision according to the majority opinion. In these circumstances, the ITAT, by its impugned order dated 05-06-2003, allowed the Assessee’s appeal. In the second appeal, i.e ITA 423/2004, the assessee is the wife of the other assessee (appellant

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

255 ITR 121 (Raj.). 13 Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (p) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT : 287 ITR 494 (Bom.). (q) Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. v. JCIT: 312 ITR 70 (Guj.). 15. He submitted that in the instant case the reassessment has been made on the basis of change of opinion. Referring to para

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

255(4) OF THE I.T. Act, 1961\n\nBy order of Hon'ble President, vide U.O.No.-F.28-\nCent.Jd(AT)/2025 dated 17th February, 2025, the undersigned is\nnominated to adjudicate the difference between the Learned\nAccountant Member and Learned Judicial Member.\n\n2. The questions on points of difference referred under Section\n254(4) of the Income

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

255 ITR (AT) 126] (Page 549-550 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) is relevant as deals with applicability of Article 21 – Other Income of the Indo-Nepal DTAA. Although the said reported decision concerns appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also