JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HISAR vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

reassessment order dated 4.3.2013 passed under section 147/143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the issue of claim of deduction under sections 80

ITO WARD - 23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BHAWANI POWER PROJECTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

80-1B." In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Revenue and confirmed the view taken by Madras High Court in case of CIT v. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 25 (Mad.) holding above. The facts of the case of the appellant are pari-materia with the facts in the above case. The only

ITO WARD - 23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BHAWANI POWER PROJECTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

80-1B." In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Revenue and confirmed the view taken by Madras High Court in case of CIT v. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 25 (Mad.) holding above. The facts of the case of the appellant are pari-materia with the facts in the above case. The only

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanti.T.A. No.2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Splendor Landbase Of Income, Central Vs. Limited, Circle-3, F-38/2, Splendor House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 215/Del/2016 In I.T.A. No. 2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S Splendor Landbase Assistant Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income, Central Circle- F-38/2, Splendor House, 3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment was in consequence of return filed in response to notice u/s 153A, which statutorily being a return u/s 139(1) provisions of s. 80 of the Act do not apply and the assessee is eligible to carry forward of the loss. I do not agree with the contentions of the appellant since sub-section

VRINDA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-26(4), NEW DELHI

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

80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, [section 115JB, 5[section 115JC] or section 115VW] [or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] 5.4 We find that during the period of filing of hard copy of return of income with the Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2004-05 were quashed by Hon‘ble ITAT vide its order dated 8th January 2016 on ground that there was no tangible/incriminating material and as such on parity of reasoning and principle laid down, there is no legal basis for assuming jurisdiction u/s 153 A of I.T. Act, 1961. (iii) That scope of proceedings

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

reassessment cannot be initiated solely on the basis of an audit objection amounting to a change of opinion.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "37(1)", "153(2)", "271(1)(c)", "80

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds

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

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

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

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

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

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

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

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

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

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

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

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

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

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

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

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

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

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

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

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

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit