PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36(1)(viii

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36(1)(viii

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from the date of payment of tax (01.05.1990) to the date of issue of refund. There is no dispute about this example

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from the date of payment of tax (01.05.1990) to the date of issue of refund. There is no dispute about this example

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from the date of payment of tax (01.05.1990) to the date of issue of refund. There is no dispute about this example

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from the date of payment of tax (01.05.1990) to the date of issue of refund. There is no dispute about this example

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

TDS and self assessment advance tax challans had not been attached etc. The respondent has not stated or averred that he had filed the requisite papers as mentioned in the said notice dated 6th July, 1988. However, there is no order of the income tax authority at Dimapur declaring the return to be void or invalid. 14. The assessment orders

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

TDS and self assessment advance tax challans had not been attached etc. The respondent has not stated or averred that he had filed the requisite papers as mentioned in the said notice dated 6th July, 1988. However, there is no order of the income tax authority at Dimapur declaring the return to be void or invalid. 14. The assessment orders

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 36(2) which provides that no deduction on account of bad debts shall be allowed unless such bad debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which amount of such debts or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year, or represents money

M/S. CBRE SOUTH ASIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10

viii) 2010-11 4,01,84,983 5,19,68,983 9. Relying on various decisions he submitted that once taxes have been paid by the director on the income claimed as expenditure by assessee company, no disallowance is permissible validly under the Act. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income of Rs.3

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income of Rs.3

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income of Rs.3

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income of Rs.3

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income of Rs.3

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income of Rs.3

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income of Rs.3

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

viii) only in respect of income from long-term finance aggregating to Rs.320.32 crores reported as part of Schedule K and did not claim deduction in respect of incomes reported in Schedule L. Therefore, the dispute was limited to determining whether the income is business income or income from other sources.In view of the aforesaid, interest income of Rs.3