M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

68,856/- made to the overseas entity, since the assessee bonafidely believed that such certification fee was not liable to tax in India, as the same was not covered within the meaning of “ Fee for Technical Services” as provided u/s 9(1) (vii) of the Act and/or the overriding provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements. The aforesaid issue stands

ITO, WARD-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TELPLAY PACKAGING SOLUTIONS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

5. ……… On a careful scrutiny of the two opinions in the aforesaid judgments, we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Allahabad and Gujarat in holding that Section 80G(2)(a) contemplates only cash amount of money as donation, for claiming relief of deduction and it does not refer to any donation

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

80G of the Act in respect of donations made as part of CSR expenditure. Re: Disallowance of Deduction under section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs. 12,01,42,780/- 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in allowing weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.100,90,68

ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DLEHI vs. ZEXUS AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(4), 148-149, Centrum Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L Co No.121/Del/2018 (Ita No.2608/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 148-149, Centrum Plaza, Ward-27(4), Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.121/Del/2018 The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

5 filed with ROC relating to issue of shares for a consideration other than cash was not disputed by the ROC. It is also his submission that addition, if any could have been made in the hands of the shareholder and definitely not in the hands of the assessee. 11. We find some force in the above argument

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

80G(2)(a), the donation must be a sum of money paid by the assessee." In view of the above decision the phrase 'any sum' employed in Section 68, cannot be extended to include any book entry, notional adjustment, payment in kind etc. In the facts of the present case, only book entry was passed in the balance sheet

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

5) [para 7.5(d)] 8. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant had undertaken activities outside India, in violation of provisions of section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 9. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition aggregating

SOCIETY FOR WELFARE AWARENESS RESEARCH AND GUIDANCE,DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

80G(5) vide order dated 10th February, 2010. The assessee has also been granted approval under section 35(i)(ii) of the I.T. Act by the Government of India vide Notification dated 01.02.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 for carrying out scientific research. It is not in dispute that notification dated 01.02.2008 of the Government of India have not been withdrawn

AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI / NFAC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwalamway India Enterprises Private Dcit, Limited, Circle-1(1), Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Vs. Delhi/Nfac. Plot No.8, Non Hierarchical Commercial, Jasola, Delhi-110025. Pan-Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. Ground of appeal No.1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. 6. In Ground of appeal No. 2 assessee has challenged the various additions/disallowance made on account of transfer price adjustment and donation and further challenged the income computed in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Amway India Enterprises Private Limited vs. DCIT Act where

LAKSHYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 does not apply. He further relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 4778/Del/2013 dated 08.03.2019 where the addition u/s 68 in the hands of that assessee is confirmed. He further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NRA Iron and Steel Co. and the decision

KARAMSHI JETHABHAI SOMAIYA (DELHI) TRUST,DELHI vs. CIRCLE EXEMPT 1(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI, DELHI,

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

80G(5) of the I.T. Act were filed. The documents submitted by appellant showed that no charitable activity was initiated. As per income and expenditure account no expense has been incurred on any charitable activity as detailed in section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So application was rejected on 26.09.2023. However, letter dated 21.09.2023 at page

KARAMSHI JETHABHAI SOMAIYA (DELHI) TRUST,DELHI vs. CIRCLE EXEMPT 1(1), DELHI, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

80G(5) of the I.T. Act were filed. The documents submitted by appellant showed that no charitable activity was initiated. As per income and expenditure account no expense has been incurred on any charitable activity as detailed in section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So application was rejected on 26.09.2023. However, letter dated 21.09.2023 at page

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 80G has not been furnished before us, the assessee shall furnish the relevant information before the AO to claim for Page 5 of 13 ITA Nos. 67, 68

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 80G has not been furnished before us, the assessee shall furnish the relevant information before the AO to claim for Page 5 of 13 ITA Nos. 67, 68

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMTED,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 80G has not been furnished before us, the assessee shall furnish the relevant information before the AO to claim for Page 5 of 13 ITA Nos. 67, 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-49(1) , NEW DELHI vs. SURESH KUMAR GOYAL, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Acit, Circle-49(1), A-1/102, Ground Floor, New Delhi Janak Puri, Delhi Pan: Aaapg4996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

5. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. 3. The Revenue next invites our attention to the CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion deleting the impugned addition of Rs.1,60,20,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68, as follows: “2. Facts of the case: The appellant is an individual

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI HRIDEY VIKRAM BHATIA, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Acit, Circle-49(1), A-1/102, Ground Floor, New Delhi Janak Puri, Delhi Pan: Aaapg4996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

5. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. 3. The Revenue next invites our attention to the CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion deleting the impugned addition of Rs.1,60,20,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68, as follows: “2. Facts of the case: The appellant is an individual

POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del. Trib.) 2. M/s. Hughes Communication India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.2346/Del/2014 & 4550/Del/2018 (Del. Trib.) 17. Without prejudice, he submitted, the CIT (Exemption) could not have withdrawn the approval granted under section 10(23C)(iv) of the retrospectively. In support of such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. ACIT Vs. Agra Development Authority

BRIJBASI EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL III, NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

80G thereof. The Appellant filed its return of income on 14th September, 2006 declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and pursuant thereto, an Assessment Order under section 143(3) was passed on 15th December 2008. The Assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] who confirmed the same