CIT vs. KRIBHCO

80A(1) & (2), Section 80AB and Section 80B(5), which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below in seriatim: “2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (45) total income means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act ; xxxx 14A. Expenditure incurred in relation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

80A(1) & (2), Section 80AB and Section 80B(5), which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below in seriatim: “2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (45) total income means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act ; xxxx 14A. Expenditure incurred in relation

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

reassessment year 1998-99, where it has declined the benefit to the assessee cannot be found fault with. But there is change in the law for the assessment year 2001-02. Section 10(B)(1) and (4) reads as under- "Section 108: Special provisions in respect off newly established hundred per cent export oriented undertakings (1) Subject to the provisions

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

reassessment action, insofar as AY 2013-14 is\nconcerned, being beyond the maximum window of six\nyears would thus falter and fail on this score\nadditionally.\n\n23.\nThat takes us to the principal question and\nconcerning the legal requirements flowing from Section\n80-1A read along with Rule 12. We find that insofar as the\ndirectory nature of Section

MMTC LTD. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1),,

The appeal is allowed, with aforesaid consequences, as directed in ground wise findings

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Mmtc Ltd., Scope Vs. Dcit, Complex, Circle-5(1) Core 1,7, Institutional Area, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessed in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Shri Ram Honda Powers. Equipment Ltd. (2007) 289 ITR 475 (Del) and relying the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of IPCA Labortries Ltd. vs DCIT ( 266 ITR 521). The bench had held that provisions of Section 80HHC there is no infirmity

M/S SMART CUBE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Stay Application No.109/Del Of 2018 (In Ita No.5473/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2007-08

80A(5) and proviso to Section 10A of the Act, the claim of the assessee for direction u/s 10A of the Act could be countenanced. 9. We have carefully gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. In this case, the claim u/s 10B of the Act made in the original return of income

U.K. PAINTS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7604/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 U.K. Paints India Ltd., Vs Acit, 19, Dda Commercial Complex, Central Circle-8, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0057C Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2020

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” 11. The above provision is in a sense a taxing exception to the stream of income which

ACIT, CIRCLE- 24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPAN INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund 5 Span India Pvt. Ltd. already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” 11. The above provision is in a sense a taxing exception

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act, is not a denovo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the Page 46 of 63 ITA No. 5251 to 5257/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013-14]; ITA No. 4492/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] M/s Jindal Photo LtdVs.The A.C.I.T assessee to claim

M/S JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act, is not a denovo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the Page 46 of 63 ITA No. 5251 to 5257/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013-14]; ITA No. 4492/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] M/s Jindal Photo LtdVs.The A.C.I.T assessee to claim

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of\nthe Act, is not a denovo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the\nassessee to claim and be allowed such deduction or allowance of\nexpenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment\nproceedings which in the case of assessee stood completed vide order dated\n15.01.2009 passed under section

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 8, NEW DELHI vs. SC JOHNSON PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2000-01

80A(2) of the Act. By order dated 28.03.2002 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer accepted the same. 3. Subsequently, learned Assessing Officer proposed rectification u/s. 154 of the Act, but after considering the submissions of the assessee, he dropped the same by order dated 25.10.2005. 4. Learned Assessing Officer, however, by notice dated 22.08.2005 issued

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections