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 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

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

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

40A(2)(b). While it is so, the action of the Revenue in disallowing the certain portion of the expenditure is not justified unless the revenue demonstrates that the transaction is primarily a device to evade tax. 15.13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 held that

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

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

40a(ia) for alleged failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5063.08 crores, it can be seen that in the course of business of manufacturing two wheelers, the assessee places purchase orders on vendors of certain customized intermediary products like wheel assembly, seat assembly, etc. While placing the aforesaid purchase orders to the vendors

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 40A(3) of the Act and the aggregate of such payments was Rs. 12,73,792 (the details of which are as under:) Sl. Nature of payment Amount No. 1. Freight charges paid to Rs.7,46,976/- transporters/ truck operators 2. Depreciation

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 40A(3) of the Act and the aggregate of such payments was Rs. 12,73,792 (the details of which are as under:) Sl. Nature of payment Amount No. 1. Freight charges paid to Rs.7,46,976/- transporters/ truck operators 2. Depreciation

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

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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.

Appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

40A (7) of the Income Tax Act? 4.Whether the ITAT was correct in law in allowing depreciation on assets in excess of 100% due to amalgamation despite provisions of 4th proviso to Section

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, INT. TAX. CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh[A.Y.: 2015-16] & [A.Y.: 2016-17]

section 40a(i) and 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and these expenses were also found unascertainable & unverifiable by the assessing officer. Further the said expenditure has not been approved by the Management Committee (MC) which is also in contravention to the production sharing contract (PSC). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. JCIT,(OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh[A.Y.: 2015-16] & [A.Y.: 2016-17]

section 40a(i) and 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and these expenses were also found unascertainable & unverifiable by the assessing officer. Further the said expenditure has not been approved by the Management Committee (MC) which is also in contravention to the production sharing contract (PSC). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case