COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ORIENT CRAFTS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

68,991/- in the assessment year 2003- 04. 10% of the said amount was taken into consideration under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. However, the export quota premium was not taken into consideration while applying proviso to sub Section 3 to Section 80HHC on the ground that it does not fall within Section 28

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V vs. NAGESH KNITWEARS P. LTD.

68,991/- in the assessment year 2003- 04. 10% of the said amount was taken into consideration under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. However, the export quota premium was not taken into consideration while applying proviso to sub Section 3 to Section 80HHC on the ground that it does not fall within Section 28

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD.

68,991/- in the assessment year 2003- 04. 10% of the said amount was taken into consideration under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. However, the export quota premium was not taken into consideration while applying proviso to sub Section 3 to Section 80HHC on the ground that it does not fall within Section 28

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V vs. NAGESH KNITWEARS P.LTD.

68,991/- in the assessment year 2003- 04. 10% of the said amount was taken into consideration under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. However, the export quota premium was not taken into consideration while applying proviso to sub Section 3 to Section 80HHC on the ground that it does not fall within Section 28

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ORIENT CARFT LTD.

68,991/- in the assessment year 2003- 04. 10% of the said amount was taken into consideration under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. However, the export quota premium was not taken into consideration while applying proviso to sub Section 3 to Section 80HHC on the ground that it does not fall within Section 28

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD.

68,991/- in the assessment year 2003- 04. 10% of the said amount was taken into consideration under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. However, the export quota premium was not taken into consideration while applying proviso to sub Section 3 to Section 80HHC on the ground that it does not fall within Section 28

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD.

68,991/- in the assessment year 2003- 04. 10% of the said amount was taken into consideration under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. However, the export quota premium was not taken into consideration while applying proviso to sub Section 3 to Section 80HHC on the ground that it does not fall within Section 28

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STAR LIGHT CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues

M/S GLOBUS REAL INFRA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKHNA STEEL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINTEX CONSUMERS ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28. LandskyReal 2013-14 Section 68 Regarding share capital of Rs. 16 Estate Pvt Share crores: the AO on the issues