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

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

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

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

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

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

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

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

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

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

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

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

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

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

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

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

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

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

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

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

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

LNG SECURITIES SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment order under Section 147 has been carried out by the AO taking it to be mistake obvious & apparent. But the AO chose not to consider these facts on an application by the Assessee on the ground that this does not get covered under Section 154. 6. However, the Hon'ble CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the assessing

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

32A, 33, 35, 36(1)(ix), 72, 74, etc. Therefore, we submit that the computation of the amount of exemption u/s 10A should be strictly in respect of export profits of eligible undertaking. In this regard, it is submitted that the AO had reached at the figures of gross total income before computing the amount of exemption under section

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

32A, 33, 35, 36(1)(ix), 72, 74, etc. Therefore, we submit that the computation of the amount of exemption u/s 10A should be strictly in respect of export profits of eligible undertaking. In this regard, it is submitted that the AO had reached at the figures of gross total income before computing the amount of exemption under section

CIT vs. RAM KISHAN DASS

reassessment,- (a) in .respect of each assess/??ent year falling within six assessn're nt years referred to in clause (b) o1 z3[sub- ' section (1) ofL section 7534, within a period of two years ffom the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisa'tions for search under section 1-32 or for' requisition under

CIT vs. RAM KISHAN DASS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

reassessment,- (a) in .respect of each assess/??ent year falling within six assessn're nt years referred to in clause (b) o1 z3[sub- ' section (1) ofL section 7534, within a period of two years ffom the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisa'tions for search under section 1-32 or for' requisition under

M/S. LAIRY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment of total six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in which search is conducted. Further, as per proviso to Section 153C. the date of search is to be substituted by the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. Since

SPACE CHEM ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2008-09

section 68 of the I.T. Act treated the same as unexplained cash credit and made addition of Rs. 30 lacs to the total income of the assessee. 9. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. The assessee also filed certain documents in shape of additional evidences since