INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

68 of the Act. The relevant extract of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in para no.21 and 22 are reproduced as under:- “21. Explanation 3 lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of an assessment of reassessment on grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,80,271/- pertains to A.Y. 2005-06 will be clear from the statements placed at Annexure-B. 4. In the above captioned notice, you have also mentioned that "there is also no discussion in the assessment order about the findings of the audit report U/S 142(2A) of the Act. Thus, the issue has not been properly examined

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,80,271/- pertains to A.Y. 2005-06 will be clear from the statements placed at Annexure-B. 4. In the above captioned notice, you have also mentioned that "there is also no discussion in the assessment order about the findings of the audit report U/S 142(2A) of the Act. Thus, the issue has not been properly examined

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,80,271/- pertains to A.Y. 2005-06 will be clear from the statements placed at Annexure-B. 4. In the above captioned notice, you have also mentioned that "there is also no discussion in the assessment order about the findings of the audit report U/S 142(2A) of the Act. Thus, the issue has not been properly examined

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,80,271/- pertains to A.Y. 2005-06 will be clear from the statements placed at Annexure-B. 4. In the above captioned notice, you have also mentioned that "there is also no discussion in the assessment order about the findings of the audit report U/S 142(2A) of the Act. Thus, the issue has not been properly examined

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,80,271/- pertains to A.Y. 2005-06 will be clear from the statements placed at Annexure-B. 4. In the above captioned notice, you have also mentioned that "there is also no discussion in the assessment order about the findings of the audit report U/S 142(2A) of the Act. Thus, the issue has not been properly examined

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

80I, 801A and 801B of the Act which occur in Chapter VIA of the Act. He referred in particular to Section 80A(4) of the Act, which reads as under: '4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this

UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

80I, 801A and 801B of the Act which occur in Chapter VIA of the Act. He referred in particular to Section 80A(4) of the Act, which reads as under: '4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

80I, 801A and 801B of the Act which occur in Chapter VIA of the Act. He referred in particular to Section 80A(4) of the Act, which reads as under: '4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

68,289/- and\nbook profit under section 115JB for MAT purposes was computed\nat INR 2,31,11,56,502/-.\n6. Against that order, the assessee preferred appeal before the\nLd. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 16.09.2020 has deleted\nthe adjustments made towards deduction claimed u/s 80IA towards\ntransfer pricing adjustment and further, deleted the addition made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

68,289/- and\nbook profit under section 115JB for MAT purposes was computed\nat INR 2,31,11,56,502/-.\n\n6. Against that order, the assessee preferred appeal before the\nLd. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 16.09.2020 has deleted\nthe adjustments made towards deduction claimed u/s 80IA towards\ntransfer pricing adjustment and further, deleted the addition

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

68,289/-\nand\nbook profit under section 115JB for MAT purposes was computed\nat INR 2,31,11,56,502/-.\n6. Against that order, the assessee preferred appeal before the\nLd. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 16.09.2020 has deleted\nthe adjustments made towards deduction claimed u/s 80IA towards\ntransfer pricing adjustment and further, deleted the addition made

M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,829/- and total profit declared was at Rs.6,69,58,974/-. The overall profit ratio of this company is 7.03% and he submitted separate Profit & Loss account and balance sheet. The total turnover was declared at Rs.10,57,95,700/- on which the profit was 3 ITA No.5724/Del./2010 declared of Rs.2,47,75,170/-. The total profit rate

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

68 crores claimed by the assessee when the assesses did not fulfill all the conditions specified in the said section' "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. 3 CIT (A) has erred in not considering the fact that No separate approval was taken from Ghaziabad Development authority (GDA in short) for the project named

M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

68 crores claimed by the assessee when the assesses did not fulfill all the conditions specified in the said section' "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. 3 CIT (A) has erred in not considering the fact that No separate approval was taken from Ghaziabad Development authority (GDA in short) for the project named

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SHIPRA ESTATE LTD., & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

68 crores claimed by the assessee when the assesses did not fulfill all the conditions specified in the said section' "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. 3 CIT (A) has erred in not considering the fact that No separate approval was taken from Ghaziabad Development authority (GDA in short) for the project named

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ADIT INFRATEL PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Adit Infratel Pvt Ltd, Circle-1(2), A-45/27, Dlf City, New Delhi Phase-1, Gurgaon Pan: Aabcl6812B (Appellant) (Respondent)

80I C of the income tax act. He extensively read the order of the learned assessing officer. 6. The learned authorised representative vehemently relied upon the order of the learned commissioner appeals and also his submissions before the learned assessing officer. It was stated by the learned authorised representative that assessee is not manufacturing the products specified under schedule

K R PULP AND PAPERS LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-19 , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,31,286/- is hereby deleted. The grounds of appeal No.\n3 to 3.1 are allowed.\n26. Regarding the adjustment made by the AO/TPO on the\ntransfer of steam from eligible unit to non-eligible unit by taking the\ncost of production of steam at NIL, in our considered view steam is\ncommercial and viable product and its value cannot