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

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

vii).] Following clause (xi) shall be inserted after clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

vii).] Following clause (xi) shall be inserted after clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

vii).] Following clause (xi) shall be inserted after clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

vii).] Following clause (xi) shall be inserted after clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

vii).] Following clause (xi) shall be inserted after clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

vii).] Following clause (xi) shall be inserted after clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

vii).] Following clause (xi) shall be inserted after clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

vii) Upon receipt of notice under Section 142(1), the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the AO, Delhi. The respondent assessee denied receipt of notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by AO, Delhi for the three assessment years. The respondent had correctly objected to the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, Delhi within the statutory time

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

vii) Upon receipt of notice under Section 142(1), the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the AO, Delhi. The respondent assessee denied receipt of notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by AO, Delhi for the three assessment years. The respondent had correctly objected to the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, Delhi within the statutory time

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

NARESH KUMAR MORYA,NARELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 61(1), CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhannaresh Kumar Morya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajiv Colony, Narela, Ward-61(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahupm7348A

reassessment proceedings, the learned AO showcaused the assessee as to why the differential consideration of Rs. 3,32,960 (52,32,960 minus Rs. 49 lakhs) be not treated as income from other sources as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii

RHYTHM POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR, CIT DELHI-7, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

reassessment under Section 263 of the Act 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the appellant that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting option of the A.O. by that of the Pr. CIT 6. On the facts

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

vii) had come up before the DRP when the AO has determined receipts for A.Y 2008-09 as FTS, the DRP has confirmed the stand taken by the AO and held that income of the assessee is FTS. The contract with HOSI also comprise of performance of same type of activities viz provision of Well Testing Services alongwith technical personnel

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

Section 40(a)(i), inserted vide Finance Act, 1988 w.e.f. 1.4.89, payment in respect of royalty, fees technical services or other sums chargeable under the Income Tax Act would not get the benefit of deduction if the assessee fails to deduct TAS in respect of payments outside India which are chargeable under the IT. Act. This provision ensures effective compliance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

56,457.  Said final assessment order was challenged before the ITAT, which remanded the issue of transfer pricing adjustment to the TPO and the issue of disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act to the AO vide order dated 29.07.2020.  In set aside proceedings, TPO passed order dated 29.03.2022 under section 92CA(3), proposing to make transfer pricing

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

56,457.  Said final assessment order was challenged before the ITAT, which remanded the issue of transfer pricing adjustment to the TPO and the issue of disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act to the AO vide order dated 29.07.2020.  In set aside proceedings, TPO passed order dated 29.03.2022 under section 92CA(3), proposing to make transfer pricing