SHRIM SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

TDS paid to be capitalized) Rs.23,09,175/- Add: Foreclosure of loan charges to be capitalized Rs.20,87,194/- Cost of property : Rs.17,26,98,678/- 2.4 The Assessing Officer ultimately under the provisions of section 50C

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. RIDGEVIEW DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Or At The Time Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3. We Shall Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal Ground Wise.

TDS is enclosed. It may be mentioned here that due to the depressive conditions in the real estate market, the assessee could not raise the funds for payment of the balance purchase consideration in respect of the above mentioned hotel building. The assessee company has sought time for further balance of payment. The vendor has allowed desired time keeping

CHARM INVESTMENT PVT.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-2 , NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

section 50C in his case and that the reference to the DVO was not mandatory. 2.3 However, the Ld. Pr. CIT did not accept the submissions of the assessee and held that since the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer had been passed without making any enquiries into the claim of the assessee and further because

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

TDS of Rs.3,01,338/- was shown against total amount of Rs.3,08,33,825/-. Consequently, the ld. AO concluded that the claim of loss is a sham transaction and in reality, a fictitious transaction under taken with the ulterior motive of reducing tax liability. He therefore made the impugned addition of addition of Page 13 of 54 ITA Nos.5029

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

TDS of Rs.3,01,338/- was shown against total amount of Rs.3,08,33,825/-. Consequently, the ld. AO concluded that the claim of loss is a sham transaction and in reality, a fictitious transaction under taken with the ulterior motive of reducing tax liability. He therefore made the impugned addition of addition of Page 13 of 54 ITA Nos.5029

PUNIT BHOLA,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

Accordingly directed to be assessed under normal\nprovision.\n9.\nTo sum up, the assessee's former appeal ITA\nNos.1736/Del/2025 is partly allowed and latter appeal ITA Nos

TDS were deleted. The addition for unexplained cash credits of Rs.25 lakhs was restricted to Rs.1 lakh.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "68", "115BBE", "50C

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS without appreciating that such interest is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 7. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in alternatively disallowing u/s 37(1), the payment of corporate charges amounting to Rs 29,69,39,832. 41 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Transfer Pricing Issues 8. That the assessing

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the above, the decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra) would support the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. In view of the totality of above facts, we are unable to uphold the view of the TPO that

DCIT, CC GZBD , GHAZIABAD vs. YUGANK GOYAL , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS and there is no evidence except scrapped sale agreement dated 05.06.2014, in the hands of A.O. to show there was on money payment by the assessee to the builder. The Ld. AR vehemently pointed out that even the 20 ITA.Nos.1533 to 1536/Del./2021 ITA Nos. 1807 & 1808/Del./2021 valuation of the property has been made

MAANYA GOYAL ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GZBD

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS and there is no evidence except scrapped sale agreement dated 05.06.2014, in the hands of A.O. to show there was on money payment by the assessee to the builder. The Ld. AR vehemently pointed out that even the 20 ITA.Nos.1533 to 1536/Del./2021 ITA Nos. 1807 & 1808/Del./2021 valuation of the property has been made

DCIT CC, , GZBD vs. BANKEY BEHARI GOYAL, AGRA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS and there is no evidence except scrapped sale agreement dated 05.06.2014, in the hands of A.O. to show there was on money payment by the assessee to the builder. The Ld. AR vehemently pointed out that even the 20 ITA.Nos.1533 to 1536/Del./2021 ITA Nos. 1807 & 1808/Del./2021 valuation of the property has been made

BANKEY BEHARI GOYAL ,AGRA (U.P) vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE GHAZIABAD, UTTARPRADESH

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS and there is no evidence except scrapped sale agreement dated 05.06.2014, in the hands of A.O. to show there was on money payment by the assessee to the builder. The Ld. AR vehemently pointed out that even the 20 ITA.Nos.1533 to 1536/Del./2021 ITA Nos. 1807 & 1808/Del./2021 valuation of the property has been made

ANI BALA GOYAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CC, GHAIZABAD

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS and there is no evidence except scrapped sale agreement dated 05.06.2014, in the hands of A.O. to show there was on money payment by the assessee to the builder. The Ld. AR vehemently pointed out that even the 20 ITA.Nos.1533 to 1536/Del./2021 ITA Nos. 1807 & 1808/Del./2021 valuation of the property has been made