R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C R BUILDING IP ESTATE vs. COFORGE LIMITED, GUR RAVI DAS MARG KALKAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

68,840/-. A notice dated 04.07.2022 was issued to the assessee proposing adjustment in terms of First Proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the assessee filed its response. The intimation order passed u/s 143(1) dated 17.10.2022 was passed by making an adjustment relating to disallowance u/s 80M

COFORGE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

68,840/-. A notice dated 04.07.2022 was issued to the assessee proposing adjustment in terms of First Proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the assessee filed its response. The intimation order passed u/s 143(1) dated 17.10.2022 was passed by making an adjustment relating to disallowance u/s 80M

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

68, 69/DEL/2025 Delhi Duty Free Services [A.Ys 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21] not fall under heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes" of Chapter - VIA. 18. The ld AR further submitted that subsequently, section 115BAA was amended vide Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. AY 2021-22 and the words "under the heading "C- Deductions in respect of certain

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

68, 69/DEL/2025 Delhi Duty Free Services [A.Ys 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21] not fall under heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes" of Chapter - VIA. 18. The ld AR further submitted that subsequently, section 115BAA was amended vide Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. AY 2021-22 and the words "under the heading "C- Deductions in respect of certain

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

68, 69/DEL/2025 Delhi Duty Free Services [A.Ys 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21] not fall under heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes" of Chapter - VIA. 18. The ld AR further submitted that subsequently, section 115BAA was amended vide Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. AY 2021-22 and the words "under the heading "C- Deductions in respect of certain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SIL INVESTMENT LTD., RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Sil Investment Ltd., Circle – 23(2), (Formerly Known As Sutlej New Delhi – 02 Industries Ltd.) Panchpahar Road, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar, Pan No. Aabcs 2899 H Rajasthan - 326502 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

80M of Rs.3,97,34,475/- made by the AO.” 3. The appellant craves to amend, modify, alter and or forgo any ground of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 5. Assessee has also made a request under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 whereby it supports the order

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. M/S ABHINANDAN INVEST.LTD.

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

68,59,360/-. This was computed by calculating the dimunition in value of 1,03,750 shares of JISCO - on the basis of which the Assessee acquired the right to subscribe to 1,29,688 PCDs - computed at Rs. 200 per share. 6.11 The AO noted that the consideration for renunciation of rights had not been received in the financial

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80M is not from the gross total income but from "such income by way of dividends". There is also another circumstance which makes it necessary for us to reconsider and review the decision in Cloth Traders' case and that is the decision in Cambay Electric Supply Co.'s case (supra). The decision in Cloth Traders' case is inconsistent with that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80M is not from the gross total income but from "such income by way of dividends". There is also another circumstance which makes it necessary for us to reconsider and review the decision in Cloth Traders' case and that is the decision in Cambay Electric Supply Co.'s case (supra). The decision in Cloth Traders' case is inconsistent with that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80M is not from the gross total income but from "such income by way of dividends". There is also another circumstance which makes it necessary for us to reconsider and review the decision in Cloth Traders' case and that is the decision in Cambay Electric Supply Co.'s case (supra). The decision in Cloth Traders' case is inconsistent with that

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

80M is not from the gross total income but from "such income by way of dividends". There is also another circumstance which makes it necessary for us to reconsider and review the decision in Cloth Traders' case and that is the decision in Cambay Electric Supply Co.'s case (supra). The decision in Cloth Traders' case is inconsistent with that

SECOND LEASING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiay. 2009-10 M/S Second Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-8(1), Flat No. N, Sagar Apartment, Vs. New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi – 11 001 (Pan: Aabcs6609R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68). After the appointment of Mr. Abhinav Kumar, due to his tremendous efforts and business generating capability the turnover of the company in the A Y in question grew by more than 18 times as compare to last FY. Further the total receipts of the assessee company rose from Rs. 42.81 Lacs in FY 2007-08 to 831.73 Lacs