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.100,90,68,000 as against

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.

iii) December, 2011; iv) ITO vs. Anand Enterprises Ltd., ITA No.1614/Kol/2016; v) ACIT vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, 23 taxmann.com 285; vi) Abhijeet Enterprises Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No.308/Kol/2017; vii) ITO vs. Bhagawat Marcom Pvt. Ltd., 109 taxman.com 350; viii) H.H. Sri Rama Verma vs. CIT, 57 taxmann 149 (SC); and ix) Abhishek Estate Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No.1585/Ahm/2007

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

5. Ledger account of M/s Indwell Pharma showing the details of purchases made during the year and payment made through account payee cheques/RTGS/Takeover of loans. (Page no. 115 to 120). It is humbly submitted that the Ld. AO on hand accepts the purchases made by the appellant from M/s Indwell Pharma and the sales made against those purchases

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

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

Appeal is allowed

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

68,99,745 covered under section 115-BBC of the Act. 12. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.6,52,493, being the value of Tata Sumo (vehicle) received as donation by the appellant. 13. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts

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)

5. Against this order the assessee is aggrieved, hence, this appeal. The ld AR submitted that assessee has submitted the complete details in the form of i. income tax return, ii. Annual report , iii. bank account, iv. confirmation of the above lender Therefore, assessee has discharged its initial onus; hence, addition has been made wrongly. He referred to 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) clause (iii) of first proviso of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applicant was issued a questionnaire on 25.05.2023 with a request to furnish certain details and documents in support of its claim for registration on or before 09.06.2023. The applicant uploaded certain details and documents on 18.07.2023. Reply was also submitted by appellant vide letter dated

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) clause (iii) of first proviso of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applicant was issued a questionnaire on 25.05.2023 with a request to furnish certain details and documents in support of its claim for registration on or before 09.06.2023. The applicant uploaded certain details and documents on 18.07.2023. Reply was also submitted by appellant vide letter dated

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

SRS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO(E), FARIDABAD

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

80G of the Act and therefore, the provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable to it as admittedly all the funds received were utilized for the purpose of charitable activities. He further submits that the loans taken in preceding AYs were never doubted which is evident from the confirmation that there is an opening balance

SHREE DEWAN SHIKSHA SAMITI,JIND vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: us. Considering the fact that the assessee has been continuously absent, we find it appropriate to hear the Ld. Departmental Representative and decide the Appeal on verifying the material available on record.

68 and a built up area of 5,459.4 sq. mtrs. It is observed that the society is running a school at Narwana and the details of land and building of the school at Narwana have not been provided. Rather, the applicant has plainly submitted that the school is being run on premises taken on lease. However

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

80G of the Act. 6. That the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred, on the facts and in law, on the circumstances of the case and in law by alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned AO have erred

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

80G of the Act. 6. That the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred, on the facts and in law, on the circumstances of the case and in law by alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned AO have erred

M/S D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

80G of the Act. 6. That the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred, on the facts and in law, on the circumstances of the case and in law by alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned AO have erred

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

80G of the Act amounting to INR 18,55,205/- has not been allowed to the Appellant (computation sheet at page 58-62 of paperbook part 2). After this deduction is allowed, the tax demand will be revised to INR 70,71,020 from INR 78,60,590/- after accounting for the revised interest. Ground no. 4-7: Nut pressed

MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimax New York Life Insurance Vs. Dcit, Company Ltd, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi Plot No. 90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

68. We noted that Section 44 of the Act start with a non-obstante clause and overriding other provisions of the Act, provides for profits and gains from life insurance business to be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule to the Act. As per rule 2 of the First Schedule to the Act, profits