PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

M/S. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-15(1), New Delhi Religare Finvest Ltd., D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan : Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 28.02.2013, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 4. 40A(2)(a) of the Act 8,185,383 Restriction of depreciation claimed on 5. UPS to 15% 14,625 3. Aggrieved

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

40A(2) of the Act had not application. 51. It is submitted that despite the appellant furnishing detailed explanations and supporting documents during the course of revisionary proceedings, the PCIT failed to consider or even refer to these submissions in the impugned order. The PCIT, without dealing with any of the detailed factual submissions or rendering any finding thereon, proceeded

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

40A(2) of the Act had not application.\n51. It is submitted that despite the appellant furnishing detailed explanations and supporting documents during the course of revisionary proceedings, the PCIT failed to consider or even refer to these submissions in the impugned order. The PCIT, without dealing with any of the detailed factual submissions or rendering any finding thereon, proceeded

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

40A(2) of the Act. 7.3 Without Prejudice, that the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing j purchases to the extent of Rs. 23.52 crores, with respect to purchases from aforesaid? related parties (in terms of AS-18) for which no comparable instance supporting the allegation of excessive payment, was available, on pure estimate basis

M/S. RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act thereon. Re: Ad-hoc disallowance of support services fee and reimbursement of expenses 6. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs. 1,04,09,222 out of support service charges paid by the appellant. 4 | P a g e 6.1 That the assessing officer/ DRP erred

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

section 40a(i) and 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and these expenses were also found unascertainable & unverifiable by the assessing officer. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] has erred in allowing the total time cost and expenses recharged by the operator to the Unincorporated Joint Venture

DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

section 40a(i) and 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and these expenses were also found unascertainable & unverifiable by the assessing officer. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] has erred in allowing the total time cost and expenses recharged by the operator to the Unincorporated Joint Venture

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

section 40a(i) and 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and these expenses were also found unascertainable & unverifiable by the assessing officer. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] has erred in allowing the total time cost and expenses recharged by the operator to the Unincorporated Joint Venture

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

section 40a(i) and 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and these expenses were also found unascertainable & unverifiable by the assessing officer. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] has erred in allowing the total time cost and expenses recharged by the operator to the Unincorporated Joint Venture

DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

section 40a(i) and 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and these expenses were also found unascertainable & unverifiable by the assessing officer. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] has erred in allowing the total time cost and expenses recharged by the operator to the Unincorporated Joint Venture

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

section 40a(i) and 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and these expenses were also found unascertainable & unverifiable by the assessing officer. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] has erred in allowing the total time cost and expenses recharged by the operator to the Unincorporated Joint Venture

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED

In the result, no fault can

Bench: The Tribunal The Revenue As Well As The Assessee, Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of 2009:Dhc:240-Db

Section 40A(2) of the Act? (c) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing depreciation to the assessee on training

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

2(22)(e) of the Act since the payment (i.e. advances) were not given in the ordinary course of business? 10. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 101,49,17,767/- on account of disallowance of turnover/sales discount etc. to dealers under section 40a

J.D. WINES,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

2 J. D. Wines (b) Without prejudice to above the appellant disputes that the quantum of addition confirmed is on higher side. 3.(a) That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.9227520/- on account of purchases u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 being cash payments to three parties whereas the payments

ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI vs. J. KISHORE EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

depreciation, mobile expenditure and telephone expenditure to the extent of 20%. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of non-deduction of tax and restricted the addition to the extent of 10% of the expenditure. 4. Aggrieved against

GE INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2008-09] Ge India Business Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T 401, 402, 4Th Floor, Circle-10(1) Aggarwal Millennium Tower, New Delhi E-1, 2, 3 Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi Pan: Aaaci6748J [Appellant] [Respondent]

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee was asked to justify the payment. 35. In its reply, the assessee stated that since it is not the owner of these assets, depreciation

UMAR DARAJ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

depreciation). However, in the impugned order, the AO restricted his conclusion almost entirely to disallowance of Rs. 82.89 crores under Section 40A(3) on account of cash payments for livestock purchases, without sustaining the other grounds mentioned in the reasons. This also evidences that the final order travelled beyond and departed from the recorded reasons. 24. On a comparative reading