DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, we must also add that the prescribed authority would also necessarily have to examine the manner in which the affairs of the university or an educational institution have been conducted in the past for the purposes of considering whether the Assessee qualifies the threshold requirement of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RBA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No 4651/Del is

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 4651/Del/Del/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Rba Buildtech Private Limited Vs Dcit/Acit A-66, Sector 63, Noida, Central Circle-1, 2Nd Floor, Uttar Pradesh Arto Complex, Ssector- Pan: Aagcr928Sf 33, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act received from Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd. and confirmed the addition of Rs. 11.55 Crore received from Sky Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved by the deletion of the said addition the Department of Revenue preferred the Appeal in ITA No. 4472/Del/2024 and as against the confirmation of the addition, the Assessee preferred an Appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RBA BUILDTECH PVT. LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 6044/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rba Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 A-66, Sector-63, Noida- Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aagcr9285F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Virsain Agarwal, Adv& Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025

68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the deletion of the said addition, the Department of Revenue preferred the present Appeal. DCIT Vs. RBA Buildtech Pvt. Ld. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee filed an application under Rule 27 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunals) Rules 1963 andsubmitted that the assessment framed

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VISHNU GOEL, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,446 has been received from Jain Agro on 30-06-2004 and this amount has been received against purchase bills of GRS, Suraj Enterprises and further this amount has been deposited in SBA/cs . It has also been deposed that the details of commission on these transaction is not mentioned as the same is taken as cash. He also admitted

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VISHNU GOEL, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,446 has been received from Jain Agro on 30-06-2004 and this amount has been received against purchase bills of GRS, Suraj Enterprises and further this amount has been deposited in SBA/cs . It has also been deposed that the details of commission on these transaction is not mentioned as the same is taken as cash. He also admitted

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VISHNU GOEL, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,446 has been received from Jain Agro on 30-06-2004 and this amount has been received against purchase bills of GRS, Suraj Enterprises and further this amount has been deposited in SBA/cs . It has also been deposed that the details of commission on these transaction is not mentioned as the same is taken as cash. He also admitted

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VISHNU GOEL, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,446 has been received from Jain Agro on 30-06-2004 and this amount has been received against purchase bills of GRS, Suraj Enterprises and further this amount has been deposited in SBA/cs . It has also been deposed that the details of commission on these transaction is not mentioned as the same is taken as cash. He also admitted

GEO CONVEST LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1),

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

35E of the Act or cannot be allowed under the provisions of the income tax Act. The assessee is also agreed that on 20/12/2001 the company installed and put to commercial use 50 seats of the call centre and the remaining 92 seats were still under installation/implementation and thus business commenced on 20/12/2001. However, the contention of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEO CONNECT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

35E of the Act or cannot be allowed under the provisions of the income tax Act. The assessee is also agreed that on 20/12/2001 the company installed and put to commercial use 50 seats of the call centre and the remaining 92 seats were still under installation/implementation and thus business commenced on 20/12/2001. However, the contention of the assessee

M/S GEO CONNECT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

35E of the Act or cannot be allowed under the provisions of the income tax Act. The assessee is also agreed that on 20/12/2001 the company installed and put to commercial use 50 seats of the call centre and the remaining 92 seats were still under installation/implementation and thus business commenced on 20/12/2001. However, the contention of the assessee

DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1) vs. GEO CONNECT LTD,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

35E of the Act or cannot be allowed under the provisions of the income tax Act. The assessee is also agreed that on 20/12/2001 the company installed and put to commercial use 50 seats of the call centre and the remaining 92 seats were still under installation/implementation and thus business commenced on 20/12/2001. However, the contention of the assessee