JINDAL ITF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2015-16

68,161/- allowed as expenditure by AO would go on to increase the book loss. The learned CIT(A) has reduced disallowance u/s 14A from 21,15,14,527/- to RS 382/- i.e., to the extent of dividend received by the appellant on the basis of jurisdictional High Court decision both under normal provision and under section 115JB computation

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

68,88,013/- under the normal provisions and at Rs.85,96,677/- under the special provisions of the Act. Scrutiny of income tax assessment revealed that the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs.9,54,626/- on account of ‘loss on sale of investment’. The expenditure being capital in nature should have been disallowed. The mistake resulted in under assessment

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 22.4 Thus, by virtue of Section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of the said Act read along with the DERC regulations shall override the provisions of all other Acts, including the Companies Act, 1956. 22.5 Corresponding to the aforesaid, even the Companies Act, 1956 (section

M/S. SHANTI SARUP & SONS PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 263 order are either incorrect or are untenable in law and various case laws relied upon by the Id. CIT are not applicable to the appellant's case, being distinguishable on facts. 2. That, without prejudice to ground no.1 above the direction of Id. CIT to AO vide Para 8 to disallow proportionate interest paid by the assessee