ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METRO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

capital limits vary in direct proportion to the net current assets. Similarly term loans granted are tied up for specific purposes and the Banker insists on bills etc. to monitor utilization. The presumption in such cases should be that the Banker have monitored the disbursements and that the loans granted by the banker have been utilized only for the purpose

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.648/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Dcit Adidas India Marketing P. Ltd. Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Circle 1(1), Vs. Room No.153A, Sector-B, Pocket No.7, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Plot No.11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. South West Delhi, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca5313P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

va) amounting to Rs.35,59,808/- and; c) Disallowance u/s 43B amounting to Rs.1,25,98,242/-. These adjustments were made by the CPC without issuing any notice to the assessee or intimating the assessee of proposed adjustments before making any adjustments in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 5. Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions

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

STEEL CITY BEVERAGES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh.M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Steel City Beverages Vs Ito Limited, C/O Advocate Ward- 24 (1) Kanika Jain D-80, Lgf New Delhi Panchsheel New Delhi - 1110017 Pan No.Aaccs3967M (Appellant) (Respondent)

36 of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (1), in clause (va), the Explanation shall be numbered as Explanation 1 thereof and after Explanation 1 as so numbered, the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:- Explanation 2.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 438 shall not apply and shall be deemed

DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

va) of Rs. the decision of Hon’ble to 273 30,61,331/- on account Supreme Court in the case of of late deposit but PCIT vs. Rajasthan State The provision of Sec deposited before the due Beverages Corp Ltd 84 43B is also amended date of filing. Taxmann.com 185 dismissing with affect from SLR and confirming the 01/04/2004 deleting

DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

va) of Rs. the decision of Hon’ble to 273 30,61,331/- on account Supreme Court in the case of of late deposit but PCIT vs. Rajasthan State The provision of Sec deposited before the due Beverages Corp Ltd 84 43B is also amended date of filing. Taxmann.com 185 dismissing with affect from SLR and confirming the 01/04/2004 deleting

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)

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 1,08,85,080/- 2(24)(x), as discussed in para 2.5.4 Less Disallowance of deduction claimed NIL u/s. 80IA as discussed in para 2.5.5 Total assessed income Rs. 49,81,91,872/- 4.3 The claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) was denied and taken as ‘NIL’. Accordingly, the final assessment was completed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section- 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to a lump sum amount of Rs.20,00,000/- without appreciating that the disallowance is to be computed in accordance with the only method prescribed under rule

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section- 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to a lump sum amount of Rs.20,00,000/- without appreciating that the disallowance is to be computed in accordance with the only method prescribed under rule

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

GRID CONTROLLER OF INDIA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS POWER SYSTEM OPERATION CORPORATION LTD),DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagrid Controller Of India Vs. Dcit (Formerly Known As Power System Circle-19(1), Operation Corporation Ltd) Delhi. B-9, 1St Floor, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, Hauz Khas, South Delhi, New Delhi Pan No. Aafcp2086B (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain as per the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. 4. The assessee is in appeal raising following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts

SAMSUNG C AND T CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

36(1)(va)) of Rs. 1,65,439/- in computing the income U/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is based on surmises and conjectures and not permitted U/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As such computation made U/s 143(1) by Ld DCI T, CPC Bangalore making adjustment

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/- since it is a typographical error, the issue under consideration is remitted back to AO to verify the same and do the needful as per law. Accordingly, ground no.4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 29. With regard to Departmental appeal, the brief facts