ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

c)(iv) of the Act. Thus it is evident that the amount claimed as expenditure incurred is otherwise also not deductable u/s 35D. 3.19 To sum up in respect of the above payment made Baer Capital Partners International Ltd. it has not been established that certain service were actually rendered to the appellant company in the absence of the copy

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

price of Rs. 80/- including share premium of Rs. 70/- per share to the following investors: M/s Best Buildmart (P) Ltd., M/s Goodluck Industries Ltd., M/s Metalcity Construction Kovai (P) Ltd., M/s Radha Ballabh Nest Build (P) Ltd, M/s Texcity Constructions Kovai (P) Ltd. 4. Due to unfavourable market conditions, the assessee company could not start its business activities. During

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Transfer (BOT) projects from ICDS IV on Revenue Recognition, please clarify whether ICDS III and ICDS IV should be applied by real estate developers and BOT operators. Also, whether ICDS applicable for lease. A:12: At present there is no specific ICDS notified for real estate developers, BOT projects and leases. Therefore, relevant provisions of the Act and ICDS shall

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Transfer (BOT) projects from ICDS IV on Revenue Recognition, please clarify whether ICDS III and ICDS IV should be applied by real estate developers and BOT operators. Also, whether ICDS applicable for lease. A:12: At present there is no specific ICDS notified for real estate developers, BOT projects and leases. Therefore, relevant provisions of the Act and ICDS shall

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Transfer (BOT) projects from ICDS IV on Revenue Recognition, please clarify whether ICDS III and ICDS IV should be applied by real estate developers and BOT operators. Also, whether ICDS applicable for lease. A:12: At present there is no specific ICDS notified for real estate developers, BOT projects and leases. Therefore, relevant provisions of the Act and ICDS shall

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Transfer (BOT) projects from ICDS IV on Revenue Recognition, please clarify whether ICDS III and ICDS IV should be applied by real estate developers and BOT operators. Also, whether ICDS applicable for lease. A:12: At present there is no specific ICDS notified for real estate developers, BOT projects and leases. Therefore, relevant provisions of the Act and ICDS shall

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Transfer (BOT) projects from ICDS IV on Revenue Recognition, please clarify whether ICDS III and ICDS IV should be applied by real estate developers and BOT operators. Also, whether ICDS applicable for lease. A:12: At present there is no specific ICDS notified for real estate developers, BOT projects and leases. Therefore, relevant provisions of the Act and ICDS shall

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

prices with retrospective effect have always been accepted as revenue deduction, including payments made during the relevant year. Therefore according to him , during the relevant previous year, the appellant made aggregate provision of Rs. 6159.90 lacs, comprising of Provision for purchase orders issued for price amendment as at 31.3.2012 of Rs. 1034.90 lacs and Provision on estimated basis for price

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

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

C ost Price Rs.101.25 per share and selling price Rs. 1.729 per share). From the above discussion it could* be seen that as on 31.3.2000 out of total (1100 shares) share capital of the company, 1000 shares having distinctive numbers from 1 to 1000 were held by Smt. Prem Lata which is more than 51% of the voting power

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

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

C ost Price Rs.101.25 per share and selling price Rs. 1.729 per share). From the above discussion it could* be seen that as on 31.3.2000 out of total (1100 shares) share capital of the company, 1000 shares having distinctive numbers from 1 to 1000 were held by Smt. Prem Lata which is more than 51% of the voting power

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

transferred to Bahalgarh unit subsequently. Such unfounded observations of the learned Assessing Officer cannot be one of the bases to deny the deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act. XXX XXX 63. We, accordingly find that the assessee cannot be denied the 49 deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act either in respect of the activities conducted

M/S L.T. FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

prices to the farmers for their produce; to minimize the losses of food grains in the course of handling, storage and transportation; and for creation of modern infrastructure to support agro economy; and that since the process of handling/processing, storage and transportation of paddy/rice is part and parcel of the integrated business of the assessee company, deduction under section 80IB

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

prices to the farmers for their produce; to minimize the losses of food grains in the course of handling, storage and transportation; and for creation of modern infrastructure to support agro economy; and that since the process of handling/processing, storage and transportation of paddy/rice is part and parcel of the integrated business of the assessee company, deduction under section 80IB

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

35D of the Act, the claim can be examined under Section 37 of the Act. The AO will examine the case afresh and decide the issue as per law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Refer page no.9 of ITAT order dated 31.08.2007. However, for assessment year 2004-05 the CIT, Appeal-XII, in appeal No. 71/07-08

M/S HOUSING & URBAN DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

35D of the Act, the claim can be examined under Section 37 of the Act. The AO will examine the case afresh and decide the issue as per law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Refer page no.9 of ITAT order dated 31.08.2007. However, for assessment year 2004-05 the CIT, Appeal-XII, in appeal No. 71/07-08

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

35D of the Act, the claim can be examined under Section 37 of the Act. The AO will examine the case afresh and decide the issue as per law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Refer page no.9 of ITAT order dated 31.08.2007. However, for assessment year 2004-05 the CIT, Appeal-XII, in appeal No. 71/07-08

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. (HUDCO), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

35D of the Act, the claim can be examined under Section 37 of the Act. The AO will examine the case afresh and decide the issue as per law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Refer page no.9 of ITAT order dated 31.08.2007. However, for assessment year 2004-05 the CIT, Appeal-XII, in appeal No. 71/07-08