DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (EARLIER KNOWN AS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE), DELHI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Punjab National Bank (Earlier Circle-19(1), Know As Oriental Bank Of Delhi Commerce), Harsha Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place, Delhi Pan: Aaaco0191M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishana, Ca Department By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr)

1) (viia) is available only if it fulfills the conditions laid down in the Act u/s 36(2)(v) of the Act and on going through the records it is observed that the assessee has nowhere in earlier years had ever made any provision for such claim. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

viia)(c) & 36(1)(viii) on the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. 6. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any grounds of appellate time of hearing.” 4. In addition to the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground on the plea that the Assessing Officer

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

viia)(c) & 36(1)(viii) on the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. 6. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any grounds of appellate time of hearing.” 4. In addition to the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground on the plea that the Assessing Officer

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

viia)(c) & 36(1)(viii) on the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. 6. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any grounds of appellate time of hearing.” 4. In addition to the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground on the plea that the Assessing Officer

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

viia)(c) & 36(1)(viii) on the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. 6. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any grounds of appellate time of hearing.” 4. In addition to the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground on the plea that the Assessing Officer

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI COUNTRYWIDE AUTO FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS was given pary- wise. It was also not demonstrated as to when it was credited as income into the profit and loss account. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is justified to make addition. 8 9. In respect of ground No. 3, the ld. DR submitted that the details of the copy of ledger account were not furnished and other requirements

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

TDS and interest on FBT claimed by the assessee as expenditure. 2.12. The A.O. also made addition of Rs.113,31,36,001/- on account of allotment of shares of NCDEX by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viia). While dong so, the A.O. noted that NCDEX was promoted by various Financial Institutions. Over a period of time the 19 ITA.No

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

TDS and interest on FBT claimed by the assessee as expenditure. 2.12. The A.O. also made addition of Rs.113,31,36,001/- on account of allotment of shares of NCDEX by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viia). While dong so, the A.O. noted that NCDEX was promoted by various Financial Institutions. Over a period of time the 19 ITA.No

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

viia)(II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about the inherent implausibility

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

viia)(II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about the inherent implausibility

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

viia)(II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about the inherent implausibility

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GHAZIABAD vs. ZILA SAHIKARI BANK LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal and cross objection both are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandraita No:- 3/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

section 36(1)(viia)(a). 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law in quashing the assessment order, while he has confirmed the addition of Rs. 8,74,358/- on account of disallowance of overdue interest etc. 4. Therefore, the learned CIT(A)'s impugned order being erroneous on facts and on law may be set aside and that

M. SONS GEMS N JEWELLERY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2015-16] M. Sons Gems N Jewellery Acit Pvt. Ltd. 4852/24, First Floor, Central Circle – 20 Near Sanjivan Hospital Vs New Delhi Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi Pan-Aadcm9406A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed Page 8 of 22 unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause. 9. A perusal of the above statutory prescription provides that an assessee

M/S. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT, SAHARANPUR

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidistrict Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Dy. Cit, Railway Road, Vs. Saharanpur – 247 001. Saharanpur – 247 001 [U.P.] Uttar Pradesh. Pan : Aaaad5431D (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(viia) of the Act. As apparent from the record that annual accounts were revised on 26.02.2016, whereas the order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 17.03.2016. Therefore, such accounts naturally could not have been before the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (Appeals) also did not consider the fact that whether such a revision

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

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

VIIA – basis of POCM Working for 8 VIID projects Page 4 of 144 16. TOR – 15 & 20 Reclassification of Income 321 326 8,15,68,758 Volume – VIII from House property Reconciliation of rental 326 329 4,49,85,573 income with TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

VIIA – basis of POCM Working for 8 VIID projects Page 4 of 144 16. TOR – 15 & 20 Reclassification of Income 321 326 8,15,68,758 Volume – VIII from House property Reconciliation of rental 326 329 4,49,85,573 income with TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

viia). 7. With respect to the ground relating to the applicability of provisions of section 115JB, the ld AR stated that the provisions of the section 115JB was not applicable to them. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

viia). 7. With respect to the ground relating to the applicability of provisions of section 115JB, the ld AR stated that the provisions of the section 115JB was not applicable to them. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material

M/S HOUSING & URBAN DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

viia) of the Act. He further relied on the judgment in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2007) AIR 482; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. 345 ITR 241 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B. Dalmia Cement Ltd., 254 ITR 377. 11.2 On the other hand, the learned CIT (DR) submitted that