OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 4(1) of the present Act speaks of levy of income-tax on the total income of every person, it necessarily means the person who is liable to pay income-tax in respect of that total income according to law. The tax has to be levied on that person, whether an individual, Hindu Undivided Family, Company, Firm, AOP/BOP

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 4(1) of the present Act speaks of levy of income-tax on the total income of every person, it necessarily means the person who is liable to pay income-tax in respect of that total income according to law. The tax has to be levied on that person, whether an individual, Hindu Undivided Family, Company, Firm, AOP/BOP

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 4(1) of the present Act speaks of levy of income-tax on the total income of every person, it necessarily means the person who is liable to pay income-tax in respect of that total income according to law. The tax has to be levied on that person, whether an individual, Hindu Undivided Family, Company, Firm, AOP/BOP

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

172 xi) Cash available for deposit 35,38,938 xii) Cash deposit during 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 32,34,000 xiii) Closing Balance as on 31.12.2016 3,04,938 It is submitted that appellant has withdrawn cash amounting to Rs. 3,30,000/- during 01.04.2016 to 07.11.2016 and Rs. 1,70,000/- during 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 which is tabulated hereunder

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, DELHI vs. M/S BIO-RAD LABORATORIES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 12 of NCTE Act, 1993 it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of Teacher Education.  There are approximately 430 applications for various Teacher Education Programmes, other than Diploma level courses, pending at different stages

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

172, para 19) ―It is trite that any observation made during the course of reasoning in a judgment should not be read divorced from the context in which it was used.‖ 147. It is further well settled that a decision is not an authority for the proposition which did not fall for its consideration.‖ 28. Similarly, in Goan Real Estate

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

3) was issued on 10-9-2012 which primarily shows that the transactions have been completed before filing of the return. The assessee from their side reproduced the relevant details and documents to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan party and the transactions. Since, the amount has already been paid, the assessee could no more exert

ADVANCE ISPAT INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

3) of Section 80HHC of the Act were claimed to `36,05,649. The calculation given by the assessee is in the following manner: “Selling & administrative expenses `30,15.769 Interest & financial expenses (after set off of interest received on Bank FDRs `7,92,204 `5,91,630 Depreciation `2,58,048 Total indirect expenses as per Profit and Loss

ADVANCE ISPAT INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

3) of Section 80HHC of the Act were claimed to `36,05,649. The calculation given by the assessee is in the following manner: “Selling & administrative expenses `30,15.769 Interest & financial expenses (after set off of interest received on Bank FDRs `7,92,204 `5,91,630 Depreciation `2,58,048 Total indirect expenses as per Profit and Loss

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

3. No specified violation as defined in sec 12AB(4) which is sine qua non for withdrawal of registration (Pg 20, 258 29)  Assertion of society that there is no specified violation since reference by AO deals with violation of conditions of sec 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d) and 13(1) and that it cannot be ground for cancellation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 34 of RDBA (as originally enacted in 1993), after amendment brought about with retrospective effect from 17.01.2000, reads as under :- "34. Act to have over-riding effect - (1). Save as provided under sub-Section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 34 of RDBA (as originally enacted in 1993), after amendment brought about with retrospective effect from 17.01.2000, reads as under :- "34. Act to have over-riding effect - (1). Save as provided under sub-Section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

68,35,593 5. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the payments made by the Assessee to non-resident Associated Enterprises were towards rendering freight and forwarding services, which was a business income in the hands of the respective AE's and not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under Section

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

68,35,593 5. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the payments made by the Assessee to non-resident Associated Enterprises were towards rendering freight and forwarding services, which was a business income in the hands of the respective AE's and not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VNG IMPEX P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

3 and 4, it is argued that,- (i) there is no discrepancies, and (ii) the provisions of section 68 are not applicable. Accordingly, it is requested that the addition may be deleted. 6. We may now take up three entries at serial nos.3, 4 and 6 of the table on page 6 of the assessment orders of Rs.2.00 crore

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 145 (3) of the act by the learned CIT – A. 36. Thus, the learned authorised representative submitted that in addition in the case of unabated assessment years i.e. Assessment Year 2012 – 13, 2013 – 14 and 2014 – 15 is made without any incriminating evidence. In case of addition assessment years (abetted assessment) for assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 145 (3) of the act by the learned CIT – A. 36. Thus, the learned authorised representative submitted that in addition in the case of unabated assessment years i.e. Assessment Year 2012 – 13, 2013 – 14 and 2014 – 15 is made without any incriminating evidence. In case of addition assessment years (abetted assessment) for assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 145 (3) of the act by the learned CIT – A. 36. Thus, the learned authorised representative submitted that in addition in the case of unabated assessment years i.e. Assessment Year 2012 – 13, 2013 – 14 and 2014 – 15 is made without any incriminating evidence. In case of addition assessment years (abetted assessment) for assessment year

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 145 (3) of the act by the learned CIT – A. 36. Thus, the learned authorised representative submitted that in addition in the case of unabated assessment years i.e. Assessment Year 2012 – 13, 2013 – 14 and 2014 – 15 is made without any incriminating evidence. In case of addition assessment years (abetted assessment) for assessment year