Section 297(1) — 5 judgments | BharatTax

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERVO TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5509/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New M/S. Arora & Bansal, Chartered Delhi. Accountants, 1401, Vikram Vs Tower, Rajendra Place, New . Delhi-110008 (Pan: Aabcr7753B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Vs. Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. R. Nirwan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of Management Consultancy Fee, not appreciating the fact that the said payment was made in contravention of the provisions of the section 297(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 governing the related party transactions, and therefore, hit by the bar placed in terms of Explanation 1 ... reproduced as under: “The Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee holding on page 9 (bottom para) that provision of section 297(1) of the companies Act was not applicable for the year under consideration. This is not the right interpretation of the fact. The Ld.CIT

INTERVO TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5268/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New M/S. Arora & Bansal, Chartered Delhi. Accountants, 1401, Vikram Vs Tower, Rajendra Place, New . Delhi-110008 (Pan: Aabcr7753B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Vs. Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. R. Nirwan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of Management Consultancy Fee, not appreciating the fact that the said payment was made in contravention of the provisions of the section 297(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 governing the related party transactions, and therefore, hit by the bar placed in terms of Explanation 1 ... reproduced as under: “The Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee holding on page 9 (bottom para) that provision of section 297(1) of the companies Act was not applicable for the year under consideration. This is not the right interpretation of the fact. The Ld.CIT

INTERVO TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5267/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New M/S. Arora & Bansal, Chartered Delhi. Accountants, 1401, Vikram Vs Tower, Rajendra Place, New . Delhi-110008 (Pan: Aabcr7753B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Vs. Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. R. Nirwan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of Management Consultancy Fee, not appreciating the fact that the said payment was made in contravention of the provisions of the section 297(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 governing the related party transactions, and therefore, hit by the bar placed in terms of Explanation 1 ... reproduced as under: “The Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee holding on page 9 (bottom para) that provision of section 297(1) of the companies Act was not applicable for the year under consideration. This is not the right interpretation of the fact. The Ld.CIT