REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nITA Nos.319 & 320/Del/2025\nITA Nos.577& 578/Del/2025\nITA

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nand 'attributable to'. Further they held that

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , CR BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\nand 'attributable to'. Further they held that

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD., KASTURBA NAGAR

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\nand 'attributable to'. Further they held that

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

36(1)(viia) is also based on the accounting treatment and the same would have yielded into same results. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sarkar Builders (2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC) have held that the assessee should not be prejudiced by differences in accounting treatment adopted by him. H) When all the accounting principles laid

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, 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

ACIT,CIRCLE-10(1) , NEW DELHI vs. INDEX SECURITIES & RESEARCH PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

viia)(d), nor is it eligible, as it was inserted via\nthe Finance Act, 2016 and became operative from 01.04.2017. Hence, the\ngeneral provision under section 36(1)(vii) alone governs the issue, and the\ndeduction has rightly been denied.\n7.\nLearned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that\nHon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in ITA No.4224/Del/2019 titled

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