VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

AC 380 at p.399) are also apposite: "Apart from the express terms of section 33, sub-section 1, a similar conclusion might be founded on the well known common law rules as to the effect of the sending of a cheque in payment of a debt, and in the fact that though the payment is subject

GUPTA CITI SHELTERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

2. 3. ITA No.972 of 2009 These companies are registered with the Registrar of Companies . The share applicants have filed their respective confirmations. Page 23 of 58 4. The companies are genuine existing share holder. 5. The investments have been made by them by account payee cheques. 6. AO's remarks that the share applicants are "entry providers" have

GUPTA CITI SHELTERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

2. 3. ITA No.972 of 2009 These companies are registered with the Registrar of Companies . The share applicants have filed their respective confirmations. Page 23 of 58 2011:DHC:12065-DB 4. The companies are genuine existing share holder. 5. The investments have been made by them by account payee cheques. 6. AO's remarks that the share applicants

CIT vs. LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Ac[. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessed; if the AO harbours doubts of the legitimacy of 9ny subscription he is empowered, nay duty-bound' to carry out thorough investigations' But if the AO fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings' he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicio ns and treat

CIT vs. JH FINVEST PVT LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Ac[. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessed; if the AO harbours doubts of the legitimacy of 9ny subscription he is empowered, nay duty-bound' to carry out thorough investigations' But if the AO fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings' he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicio ns and treat

INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Ac[. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessed; if the AO harbours doubts of the legitimacy of 9ny subscription he is empowered, nay duty-bound' to carry out thorough investigations' But if the AO fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings' he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicio ns and treat

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIJAY FOILS P.LTD.

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Ac[. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessed; if the AO harbours doubts of the legitimacy of 9ny subscription he is empowered, nay duty-bound' to carry out thorough investigations' But if the AO fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings' he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicio ns and treat

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIJAY FOILS P.LTD.

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Ac[. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessed; if the AO harbours doubts of the legitimacy of 9ny subscription he is empowered, nay duty-bound' to carry out thorough investigations' But if the AO fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings' he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicio ns and treat

INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Ac[. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessed; if the AO harbours doubts of the legitimacy of 9ny subscription he is empowered, nay duty-bound' to carry out thorough investigations' But if the AO fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings' he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicio ns and treat

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHAM MOHAN PVT LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Ac[. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessed; if the AO harbours doubts of the legitimacy of 9ny subscription he is empowered, nay duty-bound' to carry out thorough investigations' But if the AO fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings' he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicio ns and treat

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

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

AC 99 50 AIR 1960 SC 610 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.03.2026 14:32:30 Signature Not Verified LPA 144/2016 Page 39 of 61 38. In CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel51 this Court interpreted the word “plant” used in Section 10(2)(vi-b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Speaking for the Court, Grover

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

68 cannot be invoked. As such, this ground is adjudicated in favour of the appellant. ITA No.l497/Del/2018 AC IT vs. Shimmer Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2011-12 Ground Nos. 3 & 4 reads as follows: 9. "3 . That the AO has made the addition of Rs. 150 crores merely on surmises and conjectures as there is no document

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 1 vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD.,

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 44, the definition clause in the 1996 Act is a verbatim reproduction of Section 2 of the previous Act (but for the words “chapter” in place of “Act”, “First Schedule” in place of “Schedule” and the addition of the word “arbitral” before the word “award” in Section 44). Section 45 corresponds to Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

AC 63 by observing ‘it is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them’and our Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1991 SC 754 and State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

55. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee deleting the above disallowance for the earlier assessment year. The learned departmental representative could not point out that any of such expenditure are incurred which are disallowable