M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

iv)(35)(2).-PBA-3 4) Explanation 3 to section 43(1) specifically provides that the Assessing Officer shall determine the actual cost having regard to the circumstances of the case, where the Assessing Officer is of the view that the sale at the higher value was shown to enable the assessee to claim higher depreciation

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

iv)(35)(2).-PBA-3 4) Explanation 3 to section 43(1) specifically provides that the Assessing Officer shall determine the actual cost having regard to the circumstances of the case, where the Assessing Officer is of the view that the sale at the higher value was shown to enable the assessee to claim higher depreciation

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

iv)(35)(2).-PBA-3 4) Explanation 3 to section 43(1) specifically provides that the Assessing Officer shall determine the actual cost having regard to the circumstances of the case, where the Assessing Officer is of the view that the sale at the higher value was shown to enable the assessee to claim higher depreciation

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

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. 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

M/S GLOBUS REAL INFRA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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. 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 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. 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

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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON 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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERSTAR AGENCY 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 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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION 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. SUKHNA REAL ESTATE 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 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