CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd.

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…action of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s 14A. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: 1. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 (Del.); 2. CIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd., ITA No. 87/2012 (Del.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del.). 5.7.4 It was further submitted that no addition was made on this account in assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2003-04 and in AY 2004-05 the disallowances made u/s 14A were deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, therefore, following the principles of consistency also, no disallowance should have been made in this year under appeal. 5.7.5 Having…

DCIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…action of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s 14A. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: 1. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 (Del.); 2. CIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd., ITA No. 87/2012 (Del.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del.). 5.7.4 It was further submitted that no addition was made on this account in assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2003-04 and in AY 2004-05 the disallowances made u/s 14A were deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, therefore, following the principles of consistency also, no disallowance should have been made in this year under appeal. 5.7.5 Having…

DCIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…action of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s 14A. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: 1. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 (Del.); 2. CIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd., ITA No. 87/2012 (Del.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del.). 5.7.4 It was further submitted that no addition was made on this account in assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2003-04 and in AY 2004-05 the disallowances made u/s 14A were deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, therefore, following the principles of consistency also, no disallowance should have been made in this year under appeal. 5.7.5 Having…

DCIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2489/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…action of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s 14A. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: 1. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 (Del.); 2. CIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd., ITA No. 87/2012 (Del.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del.). 5.7.4 It was further submitted that no addition was made on this account in assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2003-04 and in AY 2004-05 the disallowances made u/s 14A were deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, therefore, following the principles of consistency also, no disallowance should have been made in this year under appeal. 5.7.5 Having…

DCIT, Sonepat vs. Shri Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…action of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s 14A. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: 1. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 (Del.); 2. CIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd., ITA No. 87/2012 (Del.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del.). 5.7.4 It was further submitted that no addition was made on this account in assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2003-04 and in AY 2004-05 the disallowances made u/s 14A were deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, therefore, following the principles of consistency also, no disallowance should have been made in this year under appeal. 5.7.5 Having…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…action of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s 14A. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: 1. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 (Del.); 2. CIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd., ITA No. 87/2012 (Del.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del.). 5.7.4 It was further submitted that no addition was made on this account in assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2003-04 and in AY 2004-05 the disallowances made u/s 14A were deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, therefore, following the principles of consistency also, no disallowance should have been made in this year under appeal. 5.7.5 Having…

M/S. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat vs. ACIT, Haryana

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…action of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s 14A. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: 1. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 (Del.); 2. CIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd., ITA No. 87/2012 (Del.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del.). 5.7.4 It was further submitted that no addition was made on this account in assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2003-04 and in AY 2004-05 the disallowances made u/s 14A were deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, therefore, following the principles of consistency also, no disallowance should have been made in this year under appeal. 5.7.5 Having…

Sh. Pradeep Khanna, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…the assessment, order we do not find that AO has recorded any satisfaction on the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred which is disallowable u/s 14A of the Act. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT V Taikisha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [ 370 ITR 338 (del) ] has held as under :- “11. Section 14A of the Act is relevant and reproduced below : "14A. (1) For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (2) The Ass…

Rapid Estates Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

…aim of the assessee with regard to the expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, in relation to exempt income, the Assessing Officer would have to indicate cogent reasons for the same.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del.), in similar circumstances, the Court disapproved of an AO invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D (2) of the Rules without recording his satisfaction and noted that the recording of satisfaction as to why “the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory” is a mandatory requirement of the law.” 5. In view…

Relaxo Footwear Ltd., Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirelaxo Footwear Ltd., Addl. Cit, 316-319, Allied House, Range-15, Vs. Inderlok, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacr0259D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…d Assessing Officer without recording any satisfaction about the correctness of the claim of the assessee made disallowance by invoking provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Taikisah Engineering India Ltd. [370 ITR 338] has held that no disallowance can be made if the Assessing Officer does not record satisfaction with reference to the books of accounts that the claim of the assessee is improper. On reading of the assessment order we did not find any satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court we are of the view…

Baba Global Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly we direct the AO to restrict the addition to the exempt income. Accordingly this ground is partly allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI ITA Nos. 1086 to 1091/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Baba Global Ltd., vs. DCIT, 4873-Chandni Chowk, Central Circle-29, Delhi. New Delhi (PAN: AAACB6357N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Department by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08 .02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 05:05.2016 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER These are six appeals filed by the assessee against the action of the learned DRP upholding the order passed by the AO under Sect…

M/S. Hotz Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (OSD), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

…ce made under the above provisions furnished by the assessee. Thus, on the sole ground, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not maintainable. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT v Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338(Del.); ii) Joint Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT - 233 Taxmann 117 (Del.); & iii) Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT - 347 ITR 272 (Del.); 5. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order on the issue. He submitted that it appears from the very 20 assessment order that the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with th…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Page 1 of 134 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C.SUDHIR JudicialMember AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, Accountant Member A.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs ACIT 12th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACR0127N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Date of pronouncement 25/04/2016 Assessee by: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.and Ms. Deepanvee Rao,Adv. on corporate tax issues 2. Sh. Rahul Mitra, C.A. with Sh. Derendra Gulari, C.A and Sh. Vinay Verma, C.A. on transfer pricing issues Revenue by: Shri Amrendra Kumar…

M/S. Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result Appeal No.2776/Del/2014 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Nec Technologies India Ltd, Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As Nec Hcl Range-13, Vs. Systems Technologies Ltd, New Delhi 4Th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaccn2062Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Page 1 of 14 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2 ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & NEC Technologies India Ltd, Addl. CIT, (formerly known as NEC HCL Range-13, Vs. Systems Technologies Ltd, New Delhi 4th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi PAN:AACCN2062Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh.Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv Sh. Puneet Chugh, CA Ms. Nitya Gupta, CA Revenue by: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/02/2016 Date of pronouncement 22/04/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.…

M/S. Nec Technologies India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result Appeal No.2776/Del/2014 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Nec Technologies India Ltd, Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As Nec Hcl Range-13, Vs. Systems Technologies Ltd, New Delhi 4Th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaccn2062Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Page 1 of 14 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2 ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & NEC Technologies India Ltd, Addl. CIT, (formerly known as NEC HCL Range-13, Vs. Systems Technologies Ltd, New Delhi 4th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi PAN:AACCN2062Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh.Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv Sh. Puneet Chugh, CA Ms. Nitya Gupta, CA Revenue by: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/02/2016 Date of pronouncement 22/04/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.…

M/S. Lumax Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishilumax Industries Ltd., Dcit, B-85/86, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Circle-4(1), Vs. Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Page 1 of 13 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Lumax Industries Ltd., DCIT, B-85/86, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Circle-4(1), Vs. Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADCR6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Adv Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CA Respondent by: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/02/2016 Date of pronouncement 22/04/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 143(3) read with 1. Section 144C of the Inco…

M/S. Amar Packagings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

…of the Rules and made the disallowance. Ld. AR further submitted that in any case, the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed tax free income of the assessee. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. –370 ITR 338 (Del.); 4 ITA No.6291/Del./2013 (ii) ACIT, Circle II, Faridabad vs. NHPC Ltd. – ITA No.424/Del/2013 dated 26th August, 2015 He also relied on a number of decisions in the written synopsis filed by him. Thus, ld. AR pleaded that the orders of the authorities below be set aside and the addition be deleted. 7. Ld. DR for the revenue relied on the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…Page 1 of 144 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2677/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/s. DLF Limited vs. Addl.CIT, DLF Centre, 9th Floor, Sansad Range 10, New Delhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN AAACD3494N) Appellant Respondent ITA No.3061/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) Addl.CIT, vs. M/s. DLF Limited Range 10, DLF Centre, 9th Floor, New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN AACD3494N Appellant Respondent Assesse by Shri R.S. Singhvi, Advocate Page 2 of 144 Revenue b…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…Page 1 of 144 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2677/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/s. DLF Limited vs. Addl.CIT, DLF Centre, 9th Floor, Sansad Range 10, New Delhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN AAACD3494N) Appellant Respondent ITA No.3061/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) Addl.CIT, vs. M/s. DLF Limited Range 10, DLF Centre, 9th Floor, New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN AACD3494N Appellant Respondent Assesse by Shri R.S. Singhvi, Advocate Page 2 of 144 Revenue b…