INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

68,96,659 (Previous year 52,79,24,628) thereby resulting in accumulated losses of Rs. 3,20,39,42,192 against shareholders funds of Rs. 3,10,65,04,984, which has substantially eroded its net worth as on date. Management based on future business plans of the Company and potential infusion of the funds from existing shareholders/others expects

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

68,96,659 (Previous year 52,79,24,628) thereby resulting in accumulated losses of Rs. 3,20,39,42,192 against shareholders funds of Rs. 3,10,65,04,984, which has substantially eroded its net worth as on date. Management based on future business plans of the Company and potential infusion of the funds from existing shareholders/others expects

STRYTON EXIM INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

2)(viib) of the Act In the course examination of genuineness of share capital and premium of ^20,00,00,000/- in terms of section 68 of the Act as discussed in preceding pages in details, it has been established that the assessee company has been able to siphone its own money through banks accounts of seven so-called

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD

2 of 20 return declaring total taxable income of Rs.31,14,68,297/- and exempt income of Rs.2,46,81,747/-. The assessee had voluntarily disallowed expenditure of Rs.1,15,000/- under Section 14A of the Act, calculation for which were submitted before the Assessing Officer by way of letter dated 2nd November, 2010. The Assessing Officer considered

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section 195(2

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

68. The assessing officer also disallowed depreciation on certain assets on the ground that the cost of those assets was allowed as application of the income of the trust for charitable purposes and allowance of depreciation of those assets would amount to double allowance which is not permissible. 8. There was an appeal to the CIT (Appeals) in which

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section 195(2

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section 195(2

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

199-237 of the paperbook; iii) Copy of the order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Gurgaon restraining the Cinepolis group from terminating the agreement (email) dated 06.10.2007 without allocating the agreed equity shares to the appellant- pages 238-260 of the paperbook; iv) Copy of the order dated 20.04.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon denying injunction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

68. Mr Singh submitted that whether a receipt is income or not is a mixed question of fact or law and the matter ought to be remanded to the ITAT to call for and examine the complete books and decide the question afresh. Interpreting Section 13A 69. Section 2(15) of the Act defines what is ‘charitable purpose

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

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

68. Mr Singh submitted that whether a receipt is income or not is a mixed question of fact or law and the matter ought to be remanded to the ITAT to call for and examine the complete books and decide the question afresh. Interpreting Section 13A 69. Section 2(15) of the Act defines what is ‘charitable purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ACI WIRELESS LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: DELHI-V vs. RITES LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : DELHI -V vs. RITED LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. R.L. KHERA CHARITABLE TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NEW DELHI vs. MIRA EXIM LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

CIT VI vs. VERIZON INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

NEW DELHI HOTELS LTD vs. ACIT

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277