M/S L.T. FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

11A) of the Act either in respect of the activities conducted by the assessee to meet the demand of the section, namely, deriving income from the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains or for non-compliance with the conditions depleted under section 80IB (2) of the Act. We do not find anything illegality

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

68,886 Reimbursement of Labour Charges of Paddy Season Purchase for Loading/Unloading paid by party on behalf of assessee to various labour contractors in mandi - Amount paid is below taxable limit 3. 8,38,180 Payment was made to non-resident as Market Development Charges market development charges. No income deemed to accrue or arise in India as per section

LAKSHYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11 are applicable in respect of income derived from the property held for charitable purposes. Whereas, in the facts of the case it has been found that these unexplained sums in the shape of unexplained unsecured loans though are income of the appellant but the same are not in the nature „income derived‟ from the property held

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11A(1) of the Act and as to why the duty amount of Rs. 6,73,376/- paid by them during investigation should not be appreciated against this liability. Also, as to why they should not be penalized under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the CCR read with Rule 25 of the Rules and Section 11AC

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11A(1) of the Act and as to why the duty amount of Rs. 6,73,376/- paid by them during investigation should not be appreciated against this liability. Also, as to why they should not be penalized under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the CCR read with Rule 25 of the Rules and Section 11AC

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DAAWAT FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

1 (SC)] (iii) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. CIT [27 ITR 700 (Bom)] (iv) Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT [349 ITR 250 (Bom)] (v) Vasanji Sons & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [125 ITR 462 (Bom)] (vi) CIT Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. [119 ITR 380 (Bom)] (vii) McDowell & Co. Vs. ACIT [ITA. No. 217/Bang./2009

DAWAT FOODS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

1 (SC)] (iii) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. CIT [27 ITR 700 (Bom)] (iv) Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT [349 ITR 250 (Bom)] (v) Vasanji Sons & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [125 ITR 462 (Bom)] (vi) CIT Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. [119 ITR 380 (Bom)] (vii) McDowell & Co. Vs. ACIT [ITA. No. 217/Bang./2009

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

section 68 has been found to be correct. We have also noted that the observation of ld. CIT(A) regarding failure of the ld. AO to bring on record any evidence to support cash expenditure on repair and maintenance of building by the assessee, is also correct. Thus, we have noted that the order

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

section 68 has been found to be correct. We have also noted that the observation of ld. CIT(A) regarding failure of the ld. AO to bring on record any evidence to support cash expenditure on repair and maintenance of building by the assessee, is also correct. Thus, we have noted that the order

M/S MARUTI UDYOG LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL

Bench: 31St March 2000, I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year, Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of Rs.12.27 Crores?

Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act. The SCN also proposed to levy interest and penalty from the Assessee as well as its directors/officials. 61. Mr. Ganesh explained that with a view to avoiding the coercive steps as proposed in the SCN, the Assessee, on advice, filed an application before the concerned Settlement Commission praying for grant

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. DLF UTILITIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

11A is “fraud”, “collusion”, “wilful mis- statement”, “suppression of facts” or “contravention of any of the provisions.....with intent to evade payment....” It was submitted that the use of such expressions has, in the past, in the decisions of the Supreme Court, been construed as not authorizing the authorities to invoke the extended period for mere omission to register

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

11A. The factual findings of the Tribunal is that after buying gold from MMTC, it was handed over to the job workers with design and directions to make jewellery and ornaments. The work undertaken by the job workers was under the supervision and control of the assessee. The assessee had paid labour charges to the artisans. Thus, the factual finding

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we reverse the order of the learned CIT – A income from the above disallowances and allow the appeal of the assessee to these extent

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,160/- when there is no seized material pertaining to this year. The additions made are unjust, unlawful, bad in law, without jurisdiction and are also highly excessive. Disallowance of payment in Contravention of Section 40A(3) 10. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. and subsequently

GE TRANSPORTATION PARTS LLC vs. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI - I

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

11A of the Companies Act but all other provisions of law. That this provision was not given retrospective effect, in this Court's opinion, further strengthens the petitioner's submissions. 11. In view of these prima facie reasons, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned demand to the tune it seeks to recover levy under Section 115QA

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said

ACIT CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI vs. LTC COMMERCIAL COMPANY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2014-15

Section 80IB (11A) observed that, three conditions are required to be fulfilled for availing deduction and not only storage and transportation of food grains. All the three conditions should be integrated with each other. He further observed that the profit and loss account of the assessee reflected that out of total receipt of Rs. 38,00,15,441/- from

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

68 or 69C of the IT Act for making assessment of undisclosed income arising out of unexplained expenditure due to foreign visits. The DCIT, Circle 40(1), in his report also stated that no proper enquiry has been made by the AO on account of the foreign visits. 4. On the basis of the facts arising from the record

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

68 ITR 325 (Bom.), and it was held:- “In its roots the word "manufacture" comes from the Latin word "manus" which means "hand" (and "manu" is the ablative of the word "manus") and the word "facere" which means "to make". In origin, therefore, the word implied the making of anything by hand, by with the passing of time