PASWARA IMPEX LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MEERUT

The appeal is dismissed

sections": [ "68", "143(3)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the non-encashment of a cheque and reversal of the entry

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. GE PACKAGED POWER INC

68 ITR 457) 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

RAVINDER BAWEJA ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27 JHANDEWALAN EXTN, NES DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, if such Income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

RAVINDER BAWEJA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, if such Income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

RAVINDER BAWEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, if such Income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),DELHI, DELHI vs. EBERSPAECHER SUETRAK BUS CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

The Appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

68", "Section 143(2)", "Section 142(1)", "Section 144", "Section 234B", "Section 271(1)(c)"], "issues

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED, DELHI

section 147 is \"income escaping assessment\"\nand that of section 148 \"issue of notice where income escaped\nassessment\". Section 148 is supplementary and complimentary to section\n147. Sub-section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of\nnotice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates\nservice of notice

PRADEEP TYAGI HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1),FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2017-18]

234B of the Ineome Tax Act. 1961. 4 That the appellant erases the leave to add. modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is assailing the addition of Rs.1 crore towards cash deposited

DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TEPE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further penalty u/s 271(1) (c) has been imposed and interest u/s 234A, 234B

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ASAHI INDIA GLASS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Asahi India Glass Limited, Dcit, Circle- 2(1), 38, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Vs. Phase- Iii, New Delhi.

section 115JB which were brought on the statute book with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 by the Finance Act, 2008 and 2009 respectively and that after filing of the return of income. The assessee cannot be held as a defaulter of payment of advance tax on account of a subsequent amendment which came into force retrospectively after filing

M/S. ASAHI INDIA GLASS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Asahi India Glass Limited, Dcit, Circle- 2(1), 38, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Vs. Phase- Iii, New Delhi.

section 115JB which were brought on the statute book with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 by the Finance Act, 2008 and 2009 respectively and that after filing of the return of income. The assessee cannot be held as a defaulter of payment of advance tax on account of a subsequent amendment which came into force retrospectively after filing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATAX INIDA LIMITED, DELHI

section 148A. The\n\nrelevant observations of the hon'ble high court as contained in para 29\nto 32 of the order reads as under:\n\n29. In our considered opinion, and bearing in mind the import of Explanation 3\nas well as the language in which Section 147 of the Act stands couched,\nwe find no justification

ERICSSON INDIA GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPL. RANGE 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2013-14

68,120/- (including additional compensation of Rs.41,09,18,499/- offered under APA) and claiming FTC credit of Rs.4,88,11,007/-. Consequent to additional compensation offered under APA, the assessee paid interest under Section 234B

SURABHI ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ( PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PEARLS ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed on merit

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

234B for the additions sustained by Ld. AO is not tenable in law. 7. The assessee craves the leave to add, alter, delete, withdraw any ground or grounds during the appellate proceedings.” 2.1 In nutshell, we are tasked to decide that whether the share application money of Rs. 4,70,00,000/- held as unexplained credit under section 68

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. REED HYCALOG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

section 234B and 234C of the Act shall be levied to the appellant.” 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the entire material available on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has done good reasoned order in respect of profit determined by the ld. CIT(A) @ 1.34% on direct sales and 10% on consignment sales

NIMBUS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

234B, 234C & 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, fairly conceded that grounds

NIMBUS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

234B, 234C & 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, fairly conceded that grounds

M/S. LAYOG PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2012-13 M/S. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito N-18, First Floor, Ward-15(2) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017 Pan Aabcl9997R (Appellant) (Respondent)

234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) is consequential in nature. 5. We now consider ground No. 2 which relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 36,00,000/- under section 68