HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2007 – 08 and 2008 – 09 we set-aside this ground of appeal back to the file of the learned assessing officer. 49. Ground number 13 is with respect to Proportionate cost of Model Fee considered in valuation of closing stock

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

127, then assessee’s contention stands rejected. Contention of the Assessee on merits 23. Coming on the merits of the case, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, before us has raised various proposition that such an huge addition of Rs.135.12 crore u/s.56(2)(viia) read with Rule 11UA is not sustainable. He submitted that here

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs.3.02 lacs by estimating the value of scrap lying in stock as at the end of the relevant previous year, on hypothetical / notional basis. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making addition

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

CIT vs. AAR BEE INDUSTRIES

disallowance, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jammu. That appeal, was decided in favour of the respondent / assessee by the said Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jammu on 23.02.2011 by following the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys

CIT vs. AAR BEE INDUSTRIES

disallowance, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jammu. That appeal, was decided in favour of the respondent / assessee by the said Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jammu on 23.02.2011 by following the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys

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 as per law. Thus, Ground Nos. 5 to 5.6 raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground Nos. 6 to 6.3 raised by the assessee are against the finding of 46. AO and Ld.DRP regarding expenditure of Rs.444,43,46,5/- incurred on account of royalty holding same to be capital expenditure

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 as per law. Thus, Ground Nos. 5 to 5.6 raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground Nos. 6 to 6.3 raised by the assessee are against the finding of 46. AO and Ld.DRP regarding expenditure of Rs.444,43,46,5/- incurred on account of royalty holding same to be capital expenditure

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.105,67,271/- for Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- at Dibrugarh. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) was issued

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.105,67,271/- for Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- at Dibrugarh. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) was issued

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1,LTU, NEW DELHI vs. NESTLE INDIA LTD., GURGAON

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

127/- thereby granting relief to the extent of Rs.1,11,033/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,01,287/- made by AO denying the claim of depreciating in respect or pollution control equipment as there was no evidence submitted

NESTLE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, (LTU), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

127/- thereby granting relief to the extent of Rs.1,11,033/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,01,287/- made by AO denying the claim of depreciating in respect or pollution control equipment as there was no evidence submitted

ACIT, CIRCLE-1,LTU, NEW DELHI vs. NESTLE INDIA LTD., GURGAON

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

127/- thereby granting relief to the extent of Rs.1,11,033/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,01,287/- made by AO denying the claim of depreciating in respect or pollution control equipment as there was no evidence submitted

NESTLE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, (LTU), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

127/- thereby granting relief to the extent of Rs.1,11,033/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,01,287/- made by AO denying the claim of depreciating in respect or pollution control equipment as there was no evidence submitted

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NESTLE INDIA LTD.,, GURGAON

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

127/- thereby granting relief to the extent of Rs.1,11,033/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,01,287/- made by AO denying the claim of depreciating in respect or pollution control equipment as there was no evidence submitted

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NESTLE INDIA LTD., GURGAON

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

127/- thereby granting relief to the extent of Rs.1,11,033/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,01,287/- made by AO denying the claim of depreciating in respect or pollution control equipment as there was no evidence submitted

NESTLE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

127/- thereby granting relief to the extent of Rs.1,11,033/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,01,287/- made by AO denying the claim of depreciating in respect or pollution control equipment as there was no evidence submitted