CARGILL FINANCIAL SERVICES ASIA PTE LTD.- IN LIQUIDATION,SINGAPORE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals, preferred by the assessee, stand allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :

section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act and also various circulars, held that the discounting charges were in the nature of interest and, therefore, taxable in India. He, accordingly, taxed sum of Rs. 8,02,68

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHATTA TOWERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt.Ltd., Circle-16(1), 614, Plot No.54, Mahatta Towers, New Delhi. B Block, Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Pan-Aaacm2109F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Koushlender Tiwari, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2024

68,764/- by the appellant as per details furnished has no relation with the investment made. (iv) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Taiksha Engineering India Limited, ITA No. 115/2014 & 119/2014 dated 25.11.2014 has held that the AO has to record his satisfaction on examination of assessee's accounts before making any disallowance. Further

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28A) of Act, and assessee fulfils conditions provided in section 43B(d), that is, it is interest paid in respect of loans obtained from public institutions, it follows that, interest will have to be allowed as a deduction only in year of incurring /payment, notwithstanding fact that, liability to pay such sum was incurred in an earlier year based

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28A) of Act, and assessee fulfils conditions provided in section 43B(d), that is, it is interest paid in respect of loans obtained from public institutions, it follows that, interest will have to be allowed as a deduction only in year of incurring /payment, notwithstanding fact that, liability to pay such sum was incurred in an earlier year based

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28A) of Act, and assessee fulfils conditions provided in section 43B(d), that is, it is interest paid in respect of loans obtained from public institutions, it follows that, interest will have to be allowed as a deduction only in year of incurring /payment, notwithstanding fact that, liability to pay such sum was incurred in an earlier year based

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. explanation of assessee by issuing statutory notices and questionnaire. The A.O. discussed the matter with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [“JCIT”]. The assessee also placed on record Arbitration Award and other details before A.O. for completion

ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. explanation of assessee by issuing statutory notices and questionnaire. The A.O. discussed the matter with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [“JCIT”]. The assessee also placed on record Arbitration Award and other details before A.O. for completion

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. explanation of assessee by issuing statutory notices and questionnaire. The A.O. discussed the matter with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [“JCIT”]. The assessee also placed on record Arbitration Award and other details before A.O. for completion

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. explanation of assessee by issuing statutory notices and questionnaire. The A.O. discussed the matter with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [“JCIT”]. The assessee also placed on record Arbitration Award and other details before A.O. for completion

SH. PUNEET SINGH,KARNAL vs. ACIT, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

68,370/-. The A.O held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) and after allowing a deduction of sum equal to 50% of interest received, as per the provisions of Section 57(l)(v) remaining amount of Rs. 41,84,185/- was added to the total income of the “i 5. Before

SH. LAKHA SINGH,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

68,370/-. The A.O held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) and after allowing a deduction of sum equal to 50% of interest received, as per the provisions of Section 57(l)(v) remaining amount of Rs. 41,84,185/- was added to the total income of the “i 5. Before

SHRI DINESH YADAV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

68,370/-. The A.O held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) and after allowing a deduction of sum equal to 50% of interest received, as per the provisions of Section 57(l)(v) remaining amount of Rs. 41,84,185/- was added to the total income of the “i 5. Before

KARAM VIR YADAV,GURGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmakaramvir Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, 1135, Sector 46, Nfac, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Abipy5863E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Assessee Company, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Act, So Much So That, The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Do Not Satisfy The Statutory Twin Conditions Prescribed Under Section 263 Of The Act, Viz., (I) That The Assessment

section 2(28A) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) and 145A(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year of receipt. The provisions of 2(28A) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) r.w.s. 145A(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are very loud and clear to held that interest received on all compensations of land acquisitions

SH. NITYA NAND,,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

68,370/- on enhanced compensation from State Government (DRO-cum-LAC). The Assessing Officer noted that tax of ₹ 8,36,837/- was deducted at source by the State Government. The assessee treated the amount of interest received as exempt from income relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs 4 Ghanshyam

ACIT CIRCLE-54(1), NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

68,269 for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 1,05,98,437 for AY 2012-13 made by the AO u/s 14A as provisions of section 14A are not restricted to section 10 only but ae applicable to income which does not form part of the total income under this act including section

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-32(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

68,269 for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 1,05,98,437 for AY 2012-13 made by the AO u/s 14A as provisions of section 14A are not restricted to section 10 only but ae applicable to income which does not form part of the total income under this act including section

ACIT CIRCLE-54(1), NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

68,269 for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 1,05,98,437 for AY 2012-13 made by the AO u/s 14A as provisions of section 14A are not restricted to section 10 only but ae applicable to income which does not form part of the total income under this act including section

ACIT CIRCLE-54(1), NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

68,269 for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 1,05,98,437 for AY 2012-13 made by the AO u/s 14A as provisions of section 14A are not restricted to section 10 only but ae applicable to income which does not form part of the total income under this act including section