KAVITA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT (A)/AO erred in upholding a disallowance

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT (A)/AO erred in upholding a disallowance

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowing the business expenses of Rs 9,44,390 on adhoc basis @ 10%. 6) That the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to one another. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares and mutual funds. The assessee filed return of income

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding a disallowance

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, LTU, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding a disallowance

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorized as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

SH. PRADEEP KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble:Asstt. Yrs: 2008-09 Pradeep Khanna, Vs. Acit, W-60, Greater Kailash-1, Circle-23(1), New Delhi. Pan: Aaqpk 0771 J ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

111A of the Income-tax Act. He further noticed that assessee had credited in the P&L A/c a sum of Rs. 10,87,898/- on account of dividend received. Besides, long term capital gain on sale of listed securities amounting to Rs. 11,36,768/- had also been shown. The dividend and long term capital gain had been claimed

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

section 111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

section 111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEWSOFT OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1835/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09)

Section 111A and 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961/- respectively. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the investment were not directly co- related with the business line of company and the investments were done through the investment agencies, where a lump sum amount was transferred to them. There was no direct day to day nexus between

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallow expenses relating to earning of tax free income. All the partner companies have huge expenses, whereas in the firm no expense has been claimed to earn the dividend income. This appears to be one of the main motive for creation of this firm on 13-12- 20006. 3.12 The firms independent operations are not in conformity with the others

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallow expenses relating to earning of tax free income. All the partner companies have huge expenses, whereas in the firm no expense has been claimed to earn the dividend income. This appears to be one of the main motive for creation of this firm on 13-12- 20006. 3.12 The firms independent operations are not in conformity with the others

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SHREE SHYAMKAMAL INDS. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by revenue as well as assessee’s stands allowed for statistical purposes

111A of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 57,852/- as expenses attributable to earn dividend income of Rs.5,58,362/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, without appreciating that the CBDT Notification No.45/2008 dated 24.03.2008 was effective from 01.04.2007 related

M/S. SHREE SHYAM KAMAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by revenue as well as assessee’s stands allowed for statistical purposes

111A of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 57,852/- as expenses attributable to earn dividend income of Rs.5,58,362/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, without appreciating that the CBDT Notification No.45/2008 dated 24.03.2008 was effective from 01.04.2007 related

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEWSOFT OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-3945/Del/2010 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 194J of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the aggregate payment of Rs.58,700/- made to Shri Gaurav Mehra was disallowed u/s 40(a) (ia) and added to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made an addition in respect of short term capital gain for Rs.43,54,361/- taxable u/s 111A

VIC ENTERPRISES P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No.14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowed the expenses in Computation of Income.” 4. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand are : Assessee filed return of income at Rs.2,67,34,667/- by making tax at special rate under section 111A

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No.14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowed the expenses in Computation of Income.” 4. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand are : Assessee filed return of income at Rs.2,67,34,667/- by making tax at special rate under section 111A

SH. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowance of Rs.1,23,775/- and Rs.20,749/- on account of unvouched expenses debited to the profit and loss account and depreciation on vehicles respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee appealed before the first appellate authority. The assessee made detailed written submissions before the first appellate authority and the ld. CIT(A) after considering the order