HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

section 133(6) to Megasoft Ltd. Based on the information made available, this company was selected by the Ld. TPO as a comparable. The relevant extract of the Ld. TPO’s order is as follows :- “12.17....The company has a different accounting year ending with December 2006. Thus, the company was asked u/s 133(6) to submit the audited financials

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. PIONEER FABRICATORS PVT. LTD., MEERUT

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2, Meerut B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Acit, Vs. B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Circle-2, Meerut Pioneer Partapur, Meerut Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Pan:Aabcp3296R B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent)

133 (6) of the income tax act. During the year Ld. assessing officer has noted that assessee has issued share capital of Rs. 20330000/- and share premium of Rs. 63.70 Lacs. Therefore, the assessee was asked to furnish the requisite details and in absence of details from the assessee Ld assessing officer made the addition of Rs. 2.67 crores

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 133(6) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and in law, the Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO and the Hon’ble DRP erred in selecting certain companies as comparable, with a prejudiced intention of making an addition to the returned income of the Appellant, without appreciating that in cognizance of Rule 10B(2)(b), the 6 functional, asset

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia), the disallowance made by the AO deserved to be deleted. 9.0.9 Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that there is no requirement under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act to establish operational connectivity of the eligible plant and machinery with the article and thing manufactured

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia), the disallowance made by the AO deserved to be deleted. 9.0.9 Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that there is no requirement under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act to establish operational connectivity of the eligible plant and machinery with the article and thing manufactured

TEREX EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6) and he could have used such power to get additional information. In support thereof, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Bangalore Bench in the case of IKA India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [IT (TP) A No.2192/Bang/2017] dated 17.09.2018 wherein the Tribunal has directed the TPO to exercise powers u/s 133

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 71 provide for setting off of losses from one head against income from another and the setting off of loss under one head of income is permitted against another head but during the same year. The brought forward losses whether on account of unabsorbed depreciation or business loss from earlier years are to be set off only against income

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 71 provide for setting off of losses from one head against income from another and the setting off of loss under one head of income is permitted against another head but during the same year. The brought forward losses whether on account of unabsorbed depreciation or business loss from earlier years are to be set off only against income

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SAHASRA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2006-07

section 143(3) of the Act as under:- “14. After discussions, in view of the oral and written submissions made on behalf of the assessee company and on perusal of the documents on record, the returned income of the assessee company is being re-computed as under: (Rs.) (Rs.) Net Profit as per Profit & Loss Account

SAHASRA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2006-07

section 143(3) of the Act as under:- “14. After discussions, in view of the oral and written submissions made on behalf of the assessee company and on perusal of the documents on record, the returned income of the assessee company is being re-computed as under: (Rs.) (Rs.) Net Profit as per Profit & Loss Account

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the above addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 52.1 It was contended by the learned AR that assessee has obtained unsecured loan from four parties. During the course of the hearing assessee filed all documents in respect of each of these parties. During

M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the above addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 52.1 It was contended by the learned AR that assessee has obtained unsecured loan from four parties. During the course of the hearing assessee filed all documents in respect of each of these parties. During

VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 37 of the act may be prospective, but at the same time, assessee had to justify the claim of expenditure being spent on CSR. Details mentioned hereinabove do not justify the claim of expenditure on account of commercial expediency. Considering the claim from all possible angles, we do not find any merit in such claim of expenditure. Disallowance

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

133 of the Companies Act, 2013 (corresponding to section 211(3C) of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956) provides that “the Central Government may prescribe the standards of accounting or any addendum thereto, as recommended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, constituted under section 3 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, in consultation with and after examination

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

133 of the Companies Act, 2013 (corresponding to section 211(3C) of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956) provides that “the Central Government may prescribe the standards of accounting or any addendum thereto, as recommended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, constituted under section 3 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, in consultation with and after examination

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

133 of the Companies Act, 2013 (corresponding to section 211(3C) of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956) provides that “the Central Government may prescribe the standards of accounting or any addendum thereto, as recommended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, constituted under section 3 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, in consultation with and after examination

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

133 of the Companies Act, 2013 (corresponding to section 211(3C) of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956) provides that “the Central Government may prescribe the standards of accounting or any addendum thereto, as recommended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, constituted under section 3 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, in consultation with and after examination

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

133 of the Companies Act, 2013 (corresponding to section 211(3C) of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956) provides that “the Central Government may prescribe the standards of accounting or any addendum thereto, as recommended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, constituted under section 3 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, in consultation with and after examination

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

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under