RRPR HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

139(5) of the Act. 16. Ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is thus dismissed. 17. Grounds No.2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee concerns disallowance of interest/financial charges to the extent amounting to Rs.26,44,176/-. In the course of the assessment, the Assessing Officer inter alia noticed that the assessee has earned interest income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanti.T.A. No.2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Splendor Landbase Of Income, Central Vs. Limited, Circle-3, F-38/2, Splendor House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 215/Del/2016 In I.T.A. No. 2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S Splendor Landbase Assistant Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income, Central Circle- F-38/2, Splendor House, 3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. In the case of ACIT, Central Circle -1(3), Chennai Vs. V.N. Devadoss [2013] 32 taxmann.com 133 (Chennai – Trib.) Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench has held that the returns filed by the assessee under Section 153A are to be treated as returns filed under Section 139(1) by virtue of the law stated in Section 153A

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

139, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. iii. The following second proviso was inserted in sub-clause (ia) of clause (a) of section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013: Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

5. Further, this Court is of the opinion that in cases of short deduction of TDS, disallowance under section40a(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal [2014] 46 taxmann.com 444/361ITR

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

5. Further, this Court is of the opinion that in cases of short deduction of TDS, disallowance under section40a(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal [2014] 46 taxmann.com 444/361ITR

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

5. Further, this Court is of the opinion that in cases of short deduction of TDS, disallowance under section40a(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal [2014] 46 taxmann.com 444/361ITR

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

disallow its section 13A\nexemption claim for the precise reason that it had not filed its\nreturn dated 02.02.2019 (supra) on or before the “due” date under\nsection 139(4B) of the Act. The assessee filed its reply on\n10.02.2020 that its above return had indeed been filed well within\nthe due date under section 139(4B) which could

SARAVJIT BHATIA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-11(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvajit Bhatia Income Tax Officer A-362, Dabua Colony, Pali Vs Ward – 11 (3) Road, Faridabad Faridabad Pan No.Akmpb4292K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(5) on 29.11.2006. The Assessing Officer disallowed the carry forward of the speculation loss on the ground that

EFFORT FOUDATION (N.G.O),DELHI vs. ITO , DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1204/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Effort Foundation (N.G.O.), Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 233, Pocket-10, Nasirpura, Exemption Ward-1(1), Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae4486D Assessee By: An Adjournment Application Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order

disallowed the assessee’s section 11 exemption claim on account of the fact that it had filed it’s return on 14.03.2019 i.e. very well beyond the due date thereof coming to 30.09.2018. It is noticed in this factual backdrop that the tribunal’s recent order in Indian Medical Association Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 767/PUN/2025 dated 16.06.2025 that even

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

disallowance under section 54 of the Act, which is a beneficial section and for that purpose only thing to be ensured is that capital gains consideration arising on sale of long-term capital asset are reinvested in residential property. She further submitted that even as per section 54 of the Act, there is no requirement that the assessee should have

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.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

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.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

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.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

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.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

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.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

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.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

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.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

ARVIND KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-18(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

5) & (6) of section 10A / 10B of the I.T. Act and confirmed the disallowance without noticing these sub-sections do not mandate that the return of income should be filed within the specified due date u/s 139