CIT vs. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 & 2106/2010 Page 4 of 40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 5th January, 2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Section

CIT vs. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act. 2013:DHC:6339-DB ITA Nos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 & 2106/2010 Page 4 of 40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 5th January, 2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under

CIT vs. GOETZE INDIA LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of. Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of theAct. i ITANos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 &2106/2010 Page3oF40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated S"' ,Januai7,2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Secion 263 of the Act. Tiie respondent-assessee

CIT vs. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of. Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of theAct. i ITANos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 &2106/2010 Page3oF40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated S"' ,Januai7,2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Secion 263 of the Act. Tiie respondent-assessee

CIT vs. FEDERAL-LOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of. Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of theAct. i ITANos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 &2106/2010 Page3oF40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated S"' ,Januai7,2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Secion 263 of the Act. Tiie respondent-assessee

CIT vs. FEDERAL-LOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of. Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of theAct. 2013:DHC:7798-DB 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated S"' ,Januai7,2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Secion 263 of the Act. Tiie respondent-assessee preferred an appeal

CIT vs. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA LTD

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of. Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of theAct. 2013:DHC:7798-DB 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated S"' ,Januai7,2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Secion 263 of the Act. Tiie respondent-assessee preferred an appeal

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD.

Accordingly devoid of merits and is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 115J.‖ The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.‖ 21. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. (supra) while rejecting the permissibility of adding back the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. NHPC LIMITED, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

115J.”  No Scope for Importing Section 14A into Section 115JB (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2), which refers to: “the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which any of the provisions of section 10 (other than section 10(38)) or section 11 or section 12 apply.” ACIT v. Vireet Investment

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. NHPC LIMITED, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

115J.”  No Scope for Importing Section 14A into Section 115JB (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2), which refers to: “the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which any of the provisions of section 10 (other than section 10(38)) or section 11 or section 12 apply.” ACIT v. Vireet Investment

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved

VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 37 of the act may be prospective, but at the same time, assessee had to justify the claim of expenditure being spent on CSR. Details mentioned hereinabove do not justify the claim of expenditure on account of commercial expediency. Considering the claim from all possible angles, we do not find any merit in such claim of expenditure. Disallowance

NHPC LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu, Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

disallowance as under: “ In this respect it is submitted as under: That Section 115JB sub-section (2) of Income Tax Act provides:- „Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in acccrdcr.ee with the provisions of section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956.” Provided that

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

115J, has only the power of examining whether the books of accounts have been certified by the authorities under the 1956 Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the 1956 Act. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, has the limited power of making increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation to the said section. viii. The judgment Supreme

JITF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6632/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Services Limited Tax 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, Circle 13(2), Central Revenue P.O: Ramesh Nagar Building Room No. 316A 3Rd Floor, New Delhi- 110015 Pan : Aaccj4785G I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002

disallowance under section 14A of IT Act 1961 which is to be included for calculation of book profit u/s 115J

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JITF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6632/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Services Limited Tax 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, Circle 13(2), Central Revenue P.O: Ramesh Nagar Building Room No. 316A 3Rd Floor, New Delhi- 110015 Pan : Aaccj4785G I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002

disallowance under section 14A of IT Act 1961 which is to be included for calculation of book profit u/s 115J