DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB/IC on ground that fair market value of goods transferred from Noida Division to eligible unit is higher in terms of provisions of section 80 IA (8) read with 80 IB (13

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of income would not arise. In other words, once\nthe registration is withdrawn, then the expression provided in Section\n13(1)(c) of the Act that such part of the diverted income shall get\ntaxed becomes otiose. That situation would never arise since the entire\nexemption would be denied once the registration is cancelled. Hence we\nare convinced that

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

disallowance u/s 13(2)(e) of the Act of Rs. 69,00,000/-. 13. Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC Delhi and filed a detailed submissions which are reproduced in the impugned 7 order. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and findings in the assessment order he proceeded to sustain the addition made

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

13. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the addition of Rs. 97,75,000/- made by the AO towards disallowances made by the AO towards disallowances under section 14A of the Act. 14. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

8. Even otherwise also, I find merit in appellant's claim that it's case is not covered by provisions of sec. Sections 13(2)/13(3) as no undue benefits were passed on to the specified persons u/s 13(3) of the Act. It would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 13

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

13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

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

13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

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

13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

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

13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing Rs.8,97,377 on the ground that capital investment subsidy received by the Appellant from the State Government was towards cost of plant and machinery, thereby, reducing the Written Down Value of plant and machinery and consequently, depreciation claimed thereon. 6.1 That the AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that subsidy received from the State

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. JAY SINGH SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, FARRUKHAAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

8 as per section 11 of the Act and restrict the disallowance to the extent of Rs.36.70 lakhs with the following observation :- “Further, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in arriving at an erroneous conclusion that the provisions of section 13

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

13,621 being interest on CCDs in addition to the amount already disallowed by the assessee. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before 5 ITA No. 7552 & CO. 27/Del./2018 first appellate authority. The main plank of assessee’s argument before first appellate authority was to the effect that disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A cannot exceed the quantum

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

13,75,19,178/-. 2.3. I.T.A. No. 547/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance made by the assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 432,77,074 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) [restricted to dividend income] as against suo-motu disallowance

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

13,75,19,178/-. 2.3. I.T.A. No. 547/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance made by the assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 432,77,074 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) [restricted to dividend income] as against suo-motu disallowance

ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

13,75,19,178/-. 2.3. I.T.A. No. 547/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance made by the assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 432,77,074 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) [restricted to dividend income] as against suo-motu disallowance

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

13,75,19,178/-. 2.3. I.T.A. No. 547/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance made by the assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 432,77,074 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) [restricted to dividend income] as against suo-motu disallowance

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

13,75,19,178/-. 2.3. I.T.A. No. 547/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance made by the assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 432,77,074 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) [restricted to dividend income] as against suo-motu disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

13,75,19,178/-. 2.3. I.T.A. No. 547/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance made by the assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 432,77,074 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) [restricted to dividend income] as against suo-motu disallowance