PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

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

173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or a complaint has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the scheduled offence before a Magistrate or Court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence. Thus, in cases where the scheduled offence is itself negated, the fundamental premise of continuing any proceedings under the Act also vanishes. Such cases where

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

Appeal are allowed

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

section 68 of the Act as that tantamount to double taxation. It is submitted that double taxation is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 72 ITR 291 (SC) CIT v. Laxmi Pat Singhania vs. CIT ii) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Buland Sugar

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Section 34 of RDBA (as originally enacted in 1993), after amendment brought about with retrospective effect from 17.01.2000, reads as under :- "34.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Section 34 of RDBA (as originally enacted in 1993), after amendment brought about with retrospective effect from 17.01.2000, reads as under :- "34.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

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

68,23,222/- and Rs. 10,07,81,05,172/- respectively being amount received as “cloud service fee” from customers in India towards cloud computing services rendered by the assessee from outside India treating the same as royalty and FTS/FIS under the provisions of the Act and the India-USA DTAA. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

68,23,222/- and Rs. 10,07,81,05,172/- respectively being amount received as “cloud service fee” from customers in India towards cloud computing services rendered by the assessee from outside India treating the same as royalty and FTS/FIS under the provisions of the Act and the India-USA DTAA. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUSHAN KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

1). 6)Please refer to the Delhi High court judgment ITA 429/2003 CIT VS SHIV DHOOTI PEARLS & INVESTMENT LTD decided on 21/12/2015. The copy of the judgement is attached herewith as Annexure-12. 8.It has been held that assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source of the creditor. 7.3 I have considered the facts

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

173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding

ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SINGHANIA ALU FOIL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

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

173) (Gujarat) has held that where assessee had taken unsecured loans from some persons and Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 on ground that assessee had not been able to prove immediate source of cash-in-hands of party, since all ingredients contemplated under section 68 had been duly satisfied on aspect of identity of creditors, genuineness

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

68 (Gujarat), where the facts and circumstances of the case are inconsistent and are at variance with the facts of the case of the assessee company.” 25 It is quite clear that the grounds of appeal are completely different and challenge the ad-hoc amount of income offered before the Settlement Commission to qualify for admission and, therefore, quite clearly

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

68 (Gujarat), where the facts and circumstances of the case are inconsistent and are at variance with the facts of the case of the assessee company.” 25 It is quite clear that the grounds of appeal are completely different and challenge the ad-hoc amount of income offered before the Settlement Commission to qualify for admission and, therefore, quite clearly

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

68 (Gujarat), where the facts and circumstances of the case are inconsistent and are at variance with the facts of the case of the assessee company.” 25 It is quite clear that the grounds of appeal are completely different and challenge the ad-hoc amount of income offered before the Settlement Commission to qualify for admission and, therefore, quite clearly

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

68 (Gujarat), where the facts and circumstances of the case are inconsistent and are at variance with the facts of the case of the assessee company.” 25 It is quite clear that the grounds of appeal are completely different and challenge the ad-hoc amount of income offered before the Settlement Commission to qualify for admission and, therefore, quite clearly

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

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

68 of the act unexplained 20,79,200 deleted department and brokerage @5% additional ground by assessee salary paid in cash 11,78,500 confirmed assessee and u/s 69c additional ground by assessee purchase of scrap @ 1,39,28,065 confirmed 0.75% Rs. Assesseeand 1% of turnover 104,46,052 and deleted 0.25% Rs. department 34,82,013 shifting

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

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

68 of the act unexplained 20,79,200 deleted department and brokerage @5% additional ground by assessee salary paid in cash 11,78,500 confirmed assessee and u/s 69c additional ground by assessee purchase of scrap @ 1,39,28,065 confirmed 0.75% Rs. Assesseeand 1% of turnover 104,46,052 and deleted 0.25% Rs. department 34,82,013 shifting