COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT v. A.P. Moller Moersk (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC). 32. On the issue of exercise of jurisdictional powers under Section 263 of the Act, reliance was placed on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Punjab

M/S. PARAMOUNT PHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(4), M/S. Paramount Pharma, 10/351, Sunder Vihar, Paschim New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan :Aaifp8207F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mukesh Kohli, Fca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 13.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 22/04/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals)-Xxiv, New Delhi (In Short ‘The Cit-A’) For Assessment Year 2010-11 Raising Following Grounds: “1. That The Assessee Has Earned Interest Income On Fdrs & These Fdrs Are Required As Margin For Getting Foreign Letter Of Credit. Letter Of Credit Is Required For Procuring Raw Material From Foreign Suppliers. Hence There Is Direct Nexus Between The Income Earned & The Industrial Undertaking. 2. That The Assessee Was Under The Bona Fide Belief That Interest On F.D.R Was Also Eligible For Deduction U/S 801B. 3. That The Ld. Assessing Officer Had Not Considered The Tds On Interest On Fdr & Drafted The Notice Of Demand Accordingly. 4. That There Need Not Necessary Be Direct Nexus Between The Activity Of The Undertaking & Profit & Gains Assertion 80Ic Of The Income Tax Act Requires That The Profit & Should Be Derived

TDS on interest on FDR and drafted the notice of demand accordingly. 4. That there need not necessary be direct nexus between the activity of the undertaking and profit and gains assertion 80IC of the Income Tax Act requires that the profit and should be derived 2 from any business of the undertaking. We rely upon the following court judgments

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARANI ENTERPRISES, DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross- Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS rather than following the procedure prescribed by law. The Ld. DR submitted that since the assessee has not obtained the necessary order from his Assessing Officer before transferring the commission to Shri Mehta, the amount of Rs.1,19,51,774/- is properly disallowed by the Assessing Officer. As regards the Cross-Objection of the assessee, the Ld. DR submitted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

TDS 10,30,213/- 4 Disallowance on account of personal expenses 7,70,096/- 5 Addition under section 69 of the Act on account of 1,63,39,670/- unexplained investment 6 Addition under section 14A of the Act read with 18,18,915/- Rule 8D of the Rules Total 29,98,97,528/- Aggrieved by such additions, assessee preferred

M/S L.T. FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

TDS 10,30,213/- 4 Disallowance on account of personal expenses 7,70,096/- 5 Addition under section 69 of the Act on account of 1,63,39,670/- unexplained investment 6 Addition under section 14A of the Act read with 18,18,915/- Rule 8D of the Rules Total 29,98,97,528/- Aggrieved by such additions, assessee preferred