NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishintt Data Global Delivery Vs. Dcit, Services Ltd, Circle-13(1), No. 17, South End Road, New Delhi Bangalore Pan: Aabck7777J (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of deduction under section 10 A, is required to be made on other income and miscellaneous income of the assessee. Accordingly, he held that INR 24 4340 5880/– is other income, though it can be assessed as the business income of the assessee. However same cannot be said to be the income derived from export-oriented undertaking. Therefore

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

disallowed this claim on the following I. grounds: 1. No statutory' head for "reimbursement": The AO noted that the Income-tax Act does not contain a specific section allowing deduction of "reimbursement of expenses." Any expenditure must fall within Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal

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

disallowed this claim on the following I. grounds: 1. No statutory' head for "reimbursement": The AO noted that the Income-tax Act does not contain a specific section allowing deduction of "reimbursement of expenses." Any expenditure must fall within Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal

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

disallowed this claim on the following I. grounds: 1. No statutory' head for "reimbursement": The AO noted that the Income-tax Act does not contain a specific section allowing deduction of "reimbursement of expenses." Any expenditure must fall within Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10

TRIVENI TURBINE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowed under Section 37(1) cannot be claimed under another provision, such as Section 80G, by Page 10 of 16 merely

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

37 of 59 subject matter of any disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. a) where TDS return filed stands accepted and there is no specific order under section 201 of the Act; b) where TDS return filed is followed by an order under section 201, wherein there is no specific adverse finding of default in respect

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Disallowance w.r.t. deduction claimed under Section 6,38,13,601 80G of the Act on account of donations given 14. Aggrieved by the adjustments made to the returned income, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 15. As regards impugned adjustments to the deductions eligible under s.80IC & s.80IE of Act in terms of section 80IA(10) r.w.s 92CA

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

disallowed the same holding that the loss from exempt source can neither be allowed as set off nor can be allowed to be carried forward and absorbed against income in subsequent years from the taxable source. 3. The issue ultimately reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment ruled in favour of the Revenue and against the asses

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

37(1) of the Act, the CIT(A) held that since borrowed funds have been utilized in regular business activities and not for making the investment, the aforesaid disallowance made by the assessing officer is not sustainable. Further, the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D made while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act was deleted

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed. 1.36 To this effect are the following cases:  Nomura India Investment Fund Mother Fund vs. Addl. DIT: 203 TTJ 660 (Mum Trib.)  Rare Investment vs. CIT: ITA No. 3409/Mum/2018 (Mum Trib.)  Shri Somnath Vaijanath Sakre vs. ACIT: ITA 2605/Pun/2016 (Pune Trib.) 1.37 In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully reiterated that since source of income

MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

disallowing deduction of bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) inasmuch as the same has been given during the course of its trade and had been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts. However, during the course of further arguments, learned counsel conceded that the requirement of Section 36(2), a pre-requisite for the application of Section