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

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

112,094,647.47 Considered above) 3) Other Expenses (.5% of 7,425,241.12 Average Investment) TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 119,519,888.60 14A 10.4 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a revised computation for disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section

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

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

112,094,647.47 Considered above) 3) Other Expenses (.5% of 7,425,241.12 Average Investment) TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 119,519,888.60 14A 10.4 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a revised computation for disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

112,094,647.47 Considered above) 3) Other Expenses (.5% of 7,425,241.12 Average Investment) TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 119,519,888.60 14A 10.4 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a revised computation for disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent in nature. He further submitted that similar provision for increase in prices as at the end of the year was accepted and allowed in Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page

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 the deduction claimed by the appellant holding that donations forming part of CSR expenditure is not allowable as deduction under section 80G of the Act. 4. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid issue is no longer re-integra and it has been held by various Benches of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the following cases

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowing this claim. Therefore, Ground No. 18 to 18.2 are allowed in favour of the assessee.” From the records it can be seen that the provision for the material is worked out in respect of price amendments which were already issued on 31.03.2009 which was made on the basis of actual supplied made upto the end of the year

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishia N D Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer. Accordingly, ground number three of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground number three of the appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 106. Ground number four and five of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to the direction of the learned CIT – A to the assessing officer

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

C & S ELECTRIC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the revenue's appeal stands dismissed as above

disallowance of depreciation on\nsoftware license. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that this issue was\nsquarely covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case\nof Amway India Enterprises reported in 111 ITD 112 (Del)(SB), which had\nbeen duly followed by the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the relief on this score

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the same treating the same as capital expenditure. The Ld. DRP also held that entire amount of Rs. 5 853 5098 to be capital in nature and observed that the appellant had claimed depreciation at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 81,94,914/– on the said expenditure. The Ld. DRP did not noticed that assessee had bifurcated

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 6.11. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act is incorrect since while

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance