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

capital gains", the aforesaid expenditure be allowed as deduction while computing income under that head. 22. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making additional disallowance of Rs,145.62 lacs under section 14A of the Act, by applying provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules. 22.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts

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

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

194C are not applicable. Further, the interest on the said amount is in the nature of damages which falls outside the purview of Section 194A. In any case, once amount decreed by Arbitral Tribunal, it is a kind of a judgment debt and overrides the provisions of Income Tax Act; and in support, he relied upon the following judgments

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

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

194C are not applicable. Further, the interest on the said amount is in the nature of damages which falls outside the purview of Section 194A. In any case, once amount decreed by Arbitral Tribunal, it is a kind of a judgment debt and overrides the provisions of Income Tax Act; and in support, he relied upon the following judgments

MEENA KUMARI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(4), GHAZIABAD

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimeena Kumari, Vs. Ito, B-66, Rampuri, Chander Nagar, Ward-1(4), Near Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Aefpk6899A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains. 3. Whether the ld CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in restricting the exemption u/s 54F to Rs. 46,12,500/-.” 3. In this appeal the assessee has filed an application for granting of early hearing as the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for alleged nonappearance before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUPTAJEE & COMPANY, DELHI

Accordingly, Cross Objection No. 7/Del/2016 and the Appeal in ITA No.\n4761/Del/2015 filed by the Assessee are dismissed

194C", "Section 14A" ], "issues": "Whether the multiplicative factor of '1' applicable to agricultural/residential land should be applied for capital gains

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL CHOPRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2010-11] The A.C.I.T. Vs. Shri Sunil Chopra 14A/57, 1St Floor, Wea Circle 33(1) New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi

194C. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 12,84,820/- on account of capital gains. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 2,93,510/- to Rs. 1,46,755/- on account of personal expenses.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee

RAJAT MAKAN,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

Section 194C of the said Act. 9. We feel that the decision in Cargo Linkers (supra) completely covers the case in favour of the assessee and against the respondent. The Tribunal has already found as a matter of fact that the contract was between the assessee's clients and the transporters and that the assessee had mainly acted

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

SUDESH YADAV,MOHINDERGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, NARNAUL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

capital had been generated by the assessee. The nature of business clearly shows that renovation expenses are required to be incurred for smooth functioning of retail outlet of petrol pump. Since, turnover of assessee and GP rate have increased, therefore, there is no question of assessee inflating the expenditure so as to reduce the taxable income. The genuineness

CIT vs. CAREER LAUNCHER (INDIA) LTD

In the result, the first thlee substantiaf questions of larv in ITA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital expenditurg. It is part of the price paid for the Noida.land; it is an adjunct to the price and hence part of it. It is therefore not allowable as a deduction under Section 37(l). 13. We accordingly answer the substantial questions of law No.2 for the assesstnent year 2004-05 and No.IV fgr the assesstnent year

CIT vs. CAREER LAUNCHER (INDIA) LTD

In the result, the first thlee substantiaf questions of larv in ITA

capital expenditurg. It is part of the price paid for the Noida.land; it is an adjunct to the price and hence part of it. It is therefore not allowable as a deduction under Section 37(l). 13. We accordingly answer the substantial questions of law No.2 for the assesstnent year 2004-05 and No.IV fgr the assesstnent year

ANUJ MIGLANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. R. K Panda & Sh. K. N. Charyassessment Year: 2011-12

Section / Name of Deductor / ( Nature of Income TDS No Date Filer Name Transaction 192B Plug Power Energy India Salary 14,95,034 4,32,574 1 Pvt Ltd 194J Plug Power Energy India Professional 11,66,665 1,16,666 2 Pvt Ltd Services 3 1.94C Reliance Communications Contract 31,857 637 Infrastructure Ltd Receipts 4 194C Reliance Infratel

JCIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. PRASANDI BUILDERS PVT. LTD., MEERUT

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

gain after providing benefit for cost inflation indexation to the Assessee. The full facts leading to the addition are narrated by the AO on page 7 of the assessment order. The CIT(A) has granted the nominal relief in terms of his observations in para 6.4 on page 5 of the order. The irony of the matter is that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital requirement of the JVC ii. Assessee to pay retainership fees of Rs. 3.30 crores plus cars/car & maintenance, travel & entertainment expenditure, per annum to M/s. Percept Finserve P Ltd.(unrelated party), for media management and marketing services. iii. Assessee to reimburse the sum of operating cost of the JVC. Thus, according to the aforesaid terms of the MOU, the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital requirement of the JVC ii. Assessee to pay retainership fees of Rs. 3.30 crores plus cars/car & maintenance, travel & entertainment expenditure, per annum to M/s. Percept Finserve P Ltd.(unrelated party), for media management and marketing services. iii. Assessee to reimburse the sum of operating cost of the JVC. Thus, according to the aforesaid terms of the MOU, the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital requirement of the JVC ii. Assessee to pay retainership fees of Rs. 3.30 crores plus cars/car & maintenance, travel & entertainment expenditure, per annum to M/s. Percept Finserve P Ltd.(unrelated party), for media management and marketing services. iii. Assessee to reimburse the sum of operating cost of the JVC. Thus, according to the aforesaid terms of the MOU, the assessee

M/S. OK PLAY INDIA LTD.,HARYANA vs. JCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

194C read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3 ITA No.3402/Del./2016 It is therefore prayed that addition/disallowances made and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted and appeal of the appellant company be allowed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and trading