M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

32(1)(iia) of the Act, in respect of computer software ‘Primeavera’. 5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the aforesaid penalty, without appreciating that the disallowance of additional depreciation in respect of computer software ‘Primavera’ was itself, in the first place, erroneous and therefore, there was no warrant to levy any penalty in respect

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

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

32 (Gauhati) as per which where a statutory period runs from a named date to another or the statue requires prescribes some period of days of weeks or months or years within some acts has to be done generally the first day of the period will be excluded from the reckoning and consequently the last day will be included. Thus

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

32,093/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act 1961 vide order dated 30.12.2016. On perusal of the case records, it is seen that the Assessing Officer failed to make am specific inquiries about the finding of Justice MB Shah commission of Inquiry

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 and completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 and completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 and completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 and completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 and completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 and completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 and completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 and completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which

VEDANTA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

iia) of the Act despite the fact that Appellant had not claimed the same in its return of income. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in observing that the claim of additional depreciation was to be mandatorily allowed in terms of Explanation 5 to section 32(1