Regal Theatre v. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Hebe Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

…estee group company. There is no finding on record by the AO which shows that the transfer of fund was made for non-business purposes or to evade due taxes. The Hon'bleDelhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s. M/s. Gautam Motor 2010) 194 Taxman 21 (Delhi) also 334 ITR 326 (Del) is held as under: "There is no case made out by the department that any tax avoidance has been attempted by these arrangements. We therefore, see no justification to hold the additions made by HEBE Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the Ld. AO and sustained by the CIT(A), the same is directed to be deleted and this ground of the appellant is allowed.…

Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained in CIT v. Bombay Samacltar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom) and this Court in Regal Theatre v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 205/(1998] 100 Taxman 116 (Delhi) and CIT v. Gautam Motors [2011] 334 ITR 326/[2010] 194 Taxman 21 (Delhi) payment of interest cannot be disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed only as revenue expendit…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Cable Industries, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4145/Del/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)

…wance can be made: a) Jaguar Intl. Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No. 4371/2016 date of order 27.04.2017 b) CIT vs. Sharada Erectors (P) Ltd. (2016) 76 taxmann.com 107 (Bom) c) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) d) CIT vs. Gautam Motors (2011) 334 ITR 326 e) CIT vs. Tin Box Co. (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del) f) CIT vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 354 (All) g) Swagat Infrastructure Ltd. vs. JCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 83 (Ahmd. – Tri.) h) Venus Records & Tapes (P) Ltd. vs. Add. CIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 49 (Mum. Tri.) The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is having CC limit with only Unio…

Commissioner of Income Tax VIII vs. Gopal Dass Estates & Housing Pvt.Ltd

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

…llow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained in CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 723 (Bom) and this Court in Regal Theatre v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 205 (Del) and CIT v. Gautam Motors (2011) 334 ITR 326 (Del) merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company, the payment of interest cannot be disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with 2019:DHC:1682-DB ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopal Dass Estates & Housing Pvt.Ltd

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

…llow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained in CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 723 (Bom) and this Court in Regal Theatre v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 205 (Del) and CIT v. Gautam Motors (2011) 334 ITR 326 (Del) merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company, the payment of interest cannot be disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with 2019:DHC:1676-DB ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopal Dass Estates & Housing Pvt.Ltd

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

…llow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained in CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 723 (Bom) and this Court in Regal Theatre v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 205 (Del) and CIT v. Gautam Motors (2011) 334 ITR 326 (Del) merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company, the payment of interest cannot be disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with 2019:DHC:1677-DB ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopal Dass Estates & Housing Pvt.Ltd

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

…llow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained in CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 723 (Bom) and this Court in Regal Theatre v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 205 (Del) and CIT v. Gautam Motors (2011) 334 ITR 326 (Del) merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company, the payment of interest cannot be disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with 2019:DHC:1680-DB ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following…

Maxwell & Stuart Project Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the assessees appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .Nos. 649 & 650/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS – 2011-12 & 2012-13) MAXWELL & STUART PROJECT Vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI 4391, SECTOR B, POCKET 5/6 VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI – 70 (PAN: AAGCM4943H) (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent by Shri SL Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the respective order passed by LD. CIT(A) -6 New Delhi for Assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Since facts involved in these…

Maxwell & Stuart Project Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the assessees appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .Nos. 649 & 650/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS – 2011-12 & 2012-13) MAXWELL & STUART PROJECT Vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI 4391, SECTOR B, POCKET 5/6 VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI – 70 (PAN: AAGCM4943H) (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent by Shri SL Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the respective order passed by LD. CIT(A) -6 New Delhi for Assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Since facts involved in these…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Media Satellite & Telecom Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Media Satellite & Telecom Ward-16(3), Ltd, New Delhi 1201, B-89, Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0721D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…de taxes, it cannot be disregarded for the purpose of determining the taxability of the respective entity. At this juncture, reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Gautam Motor (2010) 194 Taxman 21 (Delhi) also 334 ITR 326 (Del). Wherein it is held that, “There is no case made out by the Department that any tax avoidance has been attempted by these arrangements. We, therefore, see no justification to hold the additions made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the CIT(A), the same is directed to be deleted and this ground of appellant is allowed. ” In the case of Glaxo S…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Media Satellite & Telecoms Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2009-10 Ito, Ward 6(3), M/S Media Satellite & Room No. 304, Cr Vs. Telecoms Ltd., Building, B-86/1, Media House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacm0712D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…disregarded for the purpose of determining the taxability of the respective entity. 8.5 this juncture, reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT 10 A.Y. 2009-10 Vs. Mis Gautam Motor (2010) 194 Taxman 21 (Delhi) also 334 ITR 326 (Del). Wherein it is held that, "There is no case made out by the Department that any tax avoidance has been attempted by these arrangements. We, therefore, see no justification to hold the additions made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the CIT(A), the same is directed to be deleted and this ground of appellant is allowed.” (SLP Civil No. 18121…