PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner

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)

260 (Allahabad) C.I.T. V. BHARAT ENGG. AND CONST.CO. (19721 83 ITR 167 (SC) ABHYUDAYA PHARMACEUTICALS v CIT [2013] 350 ITR 358 (ALL) CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan(1999)237ITR 570: 155 CTR 509 (SC) Kundles Loh Udyog V ITO (2017) 83 taxmann.com 333(Chd-trib) D. Addition u/s 68 cant be made for unproved donations etc. where the same

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING AND MARKETING (P) LTD

In the result, the questions of law stand answered in favour of the

Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assails the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the ITAT”) in appeal No. 4839/Del/2009 respecting the respondent (“the assessee”) for the assessment year (AY) 2004-05. The following substantial question of law was framed by order dated 25.11.2014:- ―2.1 Whether in the facts

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

260/- as against the returned income of Rs.30,85,540/-. Referring to page 264 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued by the AO u/s 133(6) to M/s Pabla Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Referring to page 265 to 334 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench

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

260/- as against the returned income of Rs.30,85,540/-. Referring to page 264 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued by the AO u/s 133(6) to M/s Pabla Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Referring to page 265 to 334 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench

SUBRAMANIAM ASHOK KUMAR,TAMIL NADU vs. ACIT, CENTYRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act?” 3. In ITA No. 2488/Del/2023, following tangible grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBRAMANIAM ASHOK KUMAR, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act?” 3. In ITA No. 2488/Del/2023, following tangible grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed as provided u/s 244A

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed as provided u/s 244A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed as provided u/s 244A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed as provided u/s 244A

ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

260/- unabsorbed business loss of earlier year against the surrendered 2 income of Rs. 2.47 Cr.” 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate development as builder. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 4/7/2014 on the premises of the assessee comprising ACE group of cases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. ARTEX TEXTILE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 68 of the Act and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Unit Construction Co. Ltd. vs. JCTI 260

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. USHA STUD & AGRICULTURAL FARMS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

68 of the Act and as such no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal which has endorsed the decision of the CIT(A). The above being the position, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a question of law, must

ACE BUILD TECH,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-1, GURGAON

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

section 68 of the Act by way of filing confirmations copies of ITRs, bank statements and other relevant documents the ld. CIT(A) without dislodging the same upheld the addition which is not sustainable. He again precisely reiterated the case laws mentioned in paras 2.8 to 2.10 of written synopsis and submitted that in view of principle laid down

SANJAY KAUL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) is directed against the order dated 07.01.2020 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’), Bench-G, New Delhi in ITA No. 1593/Del/2019 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2015-16 whereby the appeal of the Appellant- assessee has been dismissed and consequently the order