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

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

VIKAS GLOBALONE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

131 (P&H) observed that assessee claimed no expenditure incurred to earn exempted income. The A.O. should proceed under section 14A(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to collect material and evidence to determine the expenses. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H) observed that disallowance

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

disallowance would be required in view of no liability of deducting tax at source on trade discounts. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard on the issue in dispute. The additional ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5.7 In the result, the recalled matter

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

disallowance would be required in view of no liability of deducting tax at source on trade discounts. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard on the issue in dispute. The additional ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5.7 In the result, the recalled matter

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

disallowance would be required in view of no liability of deducting tax at source on trade discounts. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard on the issue in dispute. The additional ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5.7 In the result, the recalled matter

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

131 of the act on 22/9/2003. Much before the search may have cost suspicion in the mind of the assessee Officer despite having conducted the search on the premises of the appellant is no evidence or other material could be gathered to hold that the appellant had rooted its own money. It was further held by him that these were

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

131 of the act on 22/9/2003. Much before the search may have cost suspicion in the mind of the assessee Officer despite having conducted the search on the premises of the appellant is no evidence or other material could be gathered to hold that the appellant had rooted its own money. It was further held by him that these were

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

131 of the act on 22/9/2003. Much before the search may have cost suspicion in the mind of the assessee Officer despite having conducted the search on the premises of the appellant is no evidence or other material could be gathered to hold that the appellant had rooted its own money. It was further held by him that these were

UNITED FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 131 read with provisions of CPC. Thus, a fresh opportunity cannot be given to the Revenue to cover up the lapse at this very belated stage for compliance of S. 131 by third parties by setting up commission for at least two reasons: (a) It is common knowledge that it would be extremely difficult to remember nuances

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

131 (Delhi) [PB 912 to 920] [Para 11 of the judgment], the Hon‟ble Court on the identical facts as involved in this case, has held as under: “11. As far as disallowance under section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S CARAF BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Hence, we need not refer to any other issue and aspect. 3. The respondent-assessee in the return for the year had declared income of Rs.6,30,950/- taxable under the head short-term capital gains earned from investment of Rs.38 crores in mutual funds units, which units were also sold/redeemed during

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S LAKHANI RUBBER UDYOG P. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Lakhani Rubber Udyog P. Circle-1, Block-B, Ltd, New Cgo Complex, Plot No. 131, Sector-24, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

131, Sector-24, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Assessee by: None Date of Hearing 12/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 18/06/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A), Faridabad dated 19.07.2016 for the Assessment Year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Puri Construction Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T W-82/A, Greater Kailash - Ii Circle - 18 New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacp2760 K

disallowed in the computation of income filed by the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and assessee had added back expenditure debited in the profit and loss account of Rs. 11,45,18,528/- on the ground that though the company deducted TDS but the same was not deposited before

M/S PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Puri Construction Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T W-82/A, Greater Kailash - Ii Circle - 18 New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacp2760 K

disallowed in the computation of income filed by the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and assessee had added back expenditure debited in the profit and loss account of Rs. 11,45,18,528/- on the ground that though the company deducted TDS but the same was not deposited before