M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68,000/- on account of deduction under section 36(1)(xii) of the Act but sustained the disallowance of Rs.5,23,00,000/- under section 35(1) of the Act. In assessment year 2006-07 the Assessing Officer also made disallowance of Rs.5,50,00,000/-under section 35(1) of the Act. In assessment year

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68,000/- on account of deduction under section 36(1)(xii) of the Act but sustained the disallowance of Rs.5,23,00,000/- under section 35(1) of the Act. In assessment year 2006-07 the Assessing Officer also made disallowance of Rs.5,50,00,000/-under section 35(1) of the Act. In assessment year

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68,000/- on account of deduction under section 36(1)(xii) of the Act but sustained the disallowance of Rs.5,23,00,000/- under section 35(1) of the Act. In assessment year 2006-07 the Assessing Officer also made disallowance of Rs.5,50,00,000/-under section 35(1) of the Act. In assessment year

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MANUPATRA INFORMATION SOLUTION

The appeal is disposed of declaring the law as above and setting aside

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

35 above, we declare that the law in India would not warrant an approach to answer the question by looking at whether the course pack has become a textbook, but by considering whether the inclusion of the copyrighted work in the course pack was justified by the purpose of the course pack i.e. for instructional use by the teacher

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,000 3. Interest from others 11,79,09,000 4. Liquidated Damages 76,71,90,000 5. Excess provision written back 1686,63,72,000 6. Others including sale of directories, 142,90,32,000 publications, forms, waste paper, etc. 6.2. Not convinced with the explanation offered the additions were made in the computation of income made under

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,000 3. Interest from others 11,79,09,000 4. Liquidated Damages 76,71,90,000 5. Excess provision written back 1686,63,72,000 6. Others including sale of directories, 142,90,32,000 publications, forms, waste paper, etc. 6.2. Not convinced with the explanation offered the additions were made in the computation of income made under

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

35. The amended Section 12AB (4) of the Act, does not consider a violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act as "specified violations". No allegations of "specified violation" have been averred against the Appellant in the Show Cause Notices. Consequently, the registration cannot be cancelled on the grounds that the Assessee has allegedly violated Section

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANGEL CEMENT PVT. LTD.,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPREME PLACEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

LANDSKY REAL ESTATES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI vs. JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINTEX CONSUMERS ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKHNA STEEL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1: NA Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. C.I.T(A) was not justified to uphold addition [ITA NO.509/ of Rs. 16 crores received DEL/2019] by the appellant company on account of balance share capital/premium as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that the appellant company had failed to discharge the onus cast on it by the said section