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 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

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

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

LANDSKY REAL ESTATES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), 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

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P.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

JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 13(3), 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 - 13(3), NEW DELHI vs. JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM 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. SUPREME PLACEMENT SERVICES 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 ANGEL CEMENT PVT. LTD.,, GHAZIABAD

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