ACIT CC-14, DELHI vs. DELHI SPOT BULLION TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

6)=5/(1+4) (7) (8)=5*100/ *100 7 2015-16 6445450 7370159 9247089 2016-17 1123000 1507290 4558750 21250000 2433750 18.22 21060615 11.56 00 28 0 0 1 The cash deposited by the appellant after demonetization is just 18.22% of the cash deposited before demonetization. The appellant had made cash sales even after demonetization and deposited huge cash

OM GANPATI MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 19(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act and enhanced the taxable income towards aforesaid cash deposits. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however was also not convinced by the explanation offered towards source of cash deposits by the assessee. The CIT(A) thus declined to interfere with the order

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

1) of Section 144B; b) addition under section 68 of the Act has been made without even giving an opportunity by issuing a show cause notice and ; (c) no personal hearing was granted despite petitioner requesting for the same. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the said assessment order passed in violation of section 144B

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

1) of Section 6 provided that fair dealing with a literary, dramatic or musical work for the purposes of research or private study would not constitute infringement, while Sub-Section (2) of RFA(OS) No.81/2016 Page 54 of 58 Section 6 provided that fair dealing with a literary, dramatic or musical work for the purposes of criticism

MOHD UMEED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 69A is without any basis and needs to be deleted. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to appreciate the fact that it was due to government's demonetization policy that the assessee had to deposit the entire cash lying with it in denomination of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes

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)

section (2) and thereafter, thirty per cent of such profits and gains for further five assessment years. (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (6) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (7) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (8) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (9) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (10) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (11) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (12) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (13) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6.1. A perusal of the record shows that the AO in terms of the order u/s 263 show-caused

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)

section (2) and thereafter, thirty per cent of such profits and gains for further five assessment years. (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (6) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (7) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (8) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (9) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (10) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (11) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (12) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (13) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6.1. A perusal of the record shows that the AO in terms of the order u/s 263 show-caused

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STAR LIGHT CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKHNA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 15 13 62,00,00,000 3,167/- 6. Kasper Information Technology 16.03.20 2012- 143(3) 27.09.2012 Pvt. Ltd. 15 13 46,00,00,000 1