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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

14A. 14. With regard to Ground Nos.5 to 5.2 regarding disallowance of deduction claimed on account of expenditure on scientific research under section 35(2AB) for Rohtak Unit, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the assessee had, during the year under consideration, claimed deduction in respect of scientific research expenditure incurred at its in-house facility

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. ENRICH AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2019-20 is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

14A read with Rule 8D to Rs.5,02,400/-. 4. With regard to deletion of addition of Rs.43,25,530/- to the extent of Rs.10,38,127/- and reduction of gross profit margin from 25% to 6% of bogus purchases, the relevant facts are, assessee company is a contract manufacturer of M/s. Coca Cola India for manufacturing/bottling of aerated water

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. ENRICH AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2019-20 is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

14A read with Rule 8D to Rs.5,02,400/-. 4. With regard to deletion of addition of Rs.43,25,530/- to the extent of Rs.10,38,127/- and reduction of gross profit margin from 25% to 6% of bogus purchases, the relevant facts are, assessee company is a contract manufacturer of M/s. Coca Cola India for manufacturing/bottling of aerated water

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

14A.\n14. With regard to Ground Nos.5 to 5.2 regarding disallowance of deduction claimed on\naccount of expenditure on scientific research under section 35(2AB) for Rohtak Unit,\n\n17\nld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the assessee had, during the year\nunder consideration, claimed deduction in respect of scientific research expenditure\nincurred

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI vs. RSWM LTD, KHARIGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income itself. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on the issue involved. Hence, Ground No.1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. Ground No.2 concerns disallowance on account of bogus purchases

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

14A made over and above the disallowance offered by the assessee. 11.3 Ground No.3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. Ground No.4 concerns additions of Rs.2,03,96,540/- on account of disallowance of ESOP expenses. 12.1 As per the draft assessment order, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed Rs.2,03,96,540/- under Section

M/S DHANASHREE DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year 2010-11 Dhanashree Developers P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central 303, Western Edge-1, Western Circle-4, Express Highway, New Delhi. Above Metro Mall, Borivali (East) Mumbai 400066 Pan Aaccd6182F (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchases, on account of late payment of VAT/TDS is of penal in nature the additions were rightly made. Disallowance under section 14A

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowances of Rs.88,670/- made u/s 14A of the Act, ignoring the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

14A are mandatory provisions.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee in the Revenue’s Appeal submitted at the outset that identical issue came up in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein the benefit of Long Term Gains arising to the assessee

JAKSON LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-4, DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

bogus purchases from M/s Akshay Sales Corporation and completely ignored the submissions of the appellant. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred into not taking cognizance of the evidence produced by the appellant during the course of the proceedings, substantiating the genuineness of the transaction being undertaken by it with

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. JAKSON LIMITED, DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

bogus purchases from M/s Akshay Sales Corporation and completely ignored the submissions of the appellant. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred into not taking cognizance of the evidence produced by the appellant during the course of the proceedings, substantiating the genuineness of the transaction being undertaken by it with

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. JAKSON LIMITED, DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

bogus purchases from M/s Akshay Sales Corporation and completely ignored the submissions of the appellant. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred into not taking cognizance of the evidence produced by the appellant during the course of the proceedings, substantiating the genuineness of the transaction being undertaken by it with

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 115JB of the Act. In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial precedents including:  CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [TS-410-HC-2019 (Cal.)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that capital receipts which are not in the nature of income cannot form part of book profits under section 115JB

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 115JB of the Act. In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial precedents including:  CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [TS-410-HC-2019 (Cal.)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that capital receipts which are not in the nature of income cannot form part of book profits under section 115JB

DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UFO MOVIEZ INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5.3.4 In view of above, the issue is found to be squarely covered in the favour of the appellant and therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed with the direction

UFO MOVIEZ INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT-27(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5.3.4 In view of above, the issue is found to be squarely covered in the favour of the appellant and therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed with the direction

M/S DHANASHREE DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1849/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Dhanashree Developers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., 303, Western Edge-1, Western Central Circle-4, Express Highway, Above Metro Mall, New Delhi Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd6182F Assessee By : Sh. Tanzil Padvekar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Case No. 41/14-15/1618 Dated 20.01.20116, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

Section 14A in absence of any nexus of expenditure with tax free income. 4. We advert to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing it’s purchases in the relevant previous year, as bogus

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

purchased from foreign vendors for onwards sale to foreign customers. The assessee does not have any other role in the delivery of services. Thus, no part of the service is being delivered in India. Therefore, the payment of SMS charges to Foreign Service providers is not taxable in India as the SMS facility received is in connection with earning

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

purchased from foreign vendors for onwards sale to foreign customers. The assessee does not have any other role in the delivery of services. Thus, no part of the service is being delivered in India. Therefore, the payment of SMS charges to Foreign Service providers is not taxable in India as the SMS facility received is in connection with earning