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

CIT vs. ENGINEERS INDIA LTD

In the result, the appeal is

140A, thereby upholding the order dated 20.09.2010 to such effect passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT (Appeals)” in appeal No. 75/2010-2011 that had been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.12.2008 of the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3). 2015:DHC:1817-DB ITA 300/2012 Page

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

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

sections. CIT(A) also does not dispute the facts stated by the Assessee and confirms penalty in a mechanical manner. 27.1 Further submitted that mere disallowance of a claim made in the Return would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts

AWP ASSISTANCE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2013-14 Awp Assistance (India) Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 1St Floor, Dlf Square, M-Block, Vs Circle-1(1), Jacaranda Marg, Dlf City, Gurgaon. Phase-Ii, Gurgaon-122002. Pan-Aafcm1460J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Saumya Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Ashok Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2021

disallowed purely on the ground that the amendment to section 244A sub-section (a) & (aa) of the Act was made w.e.f. 01.06.2016 since the present appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, the amended provisions of section 244A of the Act could not be made applicable for the year under appeal. 9. We have perused the judgement

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

section 145A were not applicable as the assessment year under consideration was 1995-96. In view of the detailed discussion supra with reference to the applicability of section 145A to the year in question, there can be no escape from valuation of purchase, sale and inventories under the inclusive method. We, therefore, direct the AO to recast Profit and loss

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

140A (requiring that self assessment tax paid by the assessee shall be first adjusted against the interest payable on the ‘returned income’), must be imported to section 234B of the Act to adjust interest under that section on the ‘assessed income’ against the self assessment tax paid by the assessee. 29 20. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts

SH. RAM KISHAN DASS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Kishan Dass, Vs. Acit, Prop M/S. Bishan Saroop Ram Circle-20(1), Kishan, New Delhi 25/75, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aaepd0805G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the Ld. assessing officer under section 14 A of the act as assessee did not submit the required details and further held that according to the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee did not pay the due taxes on the returned income and therefore in view of the provisions of section

NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 18(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

140A of the Act. “ 03. The ld AO has raised following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No. 4165/Del/2017 - (By the Department) “ 1. Whether infacts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) islegally justifiedin deletingdisallowance of Rs. 72,72,713/- u/s 14A of Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) without considering legislative intend of introducing section 14A by the Finance

ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEWW DELHI vs. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

140A of the Act. “ 03. The ld AO has raised following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No. 4165/Del/2017 - (By the Department) “ 1. Whether infacts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) islegally justifiedin deletingdisallowance of Rs. 72,72,713/- u/s 14A of Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) without considering legislative intend of introducing section 14A by the Finance

M/S. PENAM LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Deputy M/S. Penam Laboratories Ltd., Commissioner Of F-223, New Rajinder Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-14(1), New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaacp0362M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rajesh Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11/11/2013 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- Xvii, Laxmi Nagar , Delhi For Assessment Year 2010-11 Raising Following Grounds: “1. That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Levy Of Interest U/S 234A & 234B Of The Act Without Considering The Amount Of Income Tax Paid On Various Dates During The Period April 2010 To March 2011, Totaling To Rs. 1,20,00,000/- As Per Details Submitted During The Course Of Hearing, Without Appreciating The Spirit Of Various Judgement Of Honourable Supreme Court & High Court, Specially The Case Of Pranoy Roy 309 Itr 231 (Sc) Where In It Was Held That Interest Is Compensatory In Nature. 2. That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding That Interest U/S 234A Amounting To Rs. 9,45,492/- Been Rightly Charged, In Spite Of 2 Ay: 2010-11 Holding That Interest Will Not Be Chargeable On The Amount Of Tax Paid Before Filing The Income Tax Return. 3. That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Not Directing Of Assessing Officer Categorically That Interest U/S 234B Of The Act Should Be Calculated After Giving Due Credit Of Taxes Paid By The Appellant On Various Dates During The Period April 2010 To March 2011, Amounting Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. 4. That The Order Of Cit (A) Is Not Based On Correct Facts & Judicial Precedents Relied Upon By The Appellant & Therefore Deserve To Be Set Aside.”

disallowance of Rs.27,778/- to the returned income. In the Income Tax Computation Form (ITNS-150) issued alongwith the assessment order, the interest under section 234A amounting to Rs.9,45,497/-, under section 234B amounting to Rs.14,21,911/- and under section 234C amounting to Rs.13,93,308/-was levied. Aggrieved with the interest levied under section 234A and 234B

M/S PREMIER BOOK CO.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2007-08

disallowance under section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. 4.1 It is observed that Ld.CIT issued notice under section 263 of the Act to assessee on 19/04/10, which is reproduced as under: Notice u/s 263 of the I.T. Act – AY 2007-08 “While carrying out the inspection of the assessment order passed by the Addl. CIT, Range-30, New Delhi

CIT vs. BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

disallowances and additional claims were made and ultimately after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal‟s (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) order, the total income under the normal provisions was worked out by the AO in terms of order dated 20.11.2007 under Section 254 of the Act at `147,14,95,301/-. However, subsequently while determining the income

THE BANK OF TOKYO MISTUBISHI UFJ LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Before Mr. Bhavnesh Saini

disallowances made by the AO and the ITAT vide its order dated 19th September, 2014 set aside the order on certain issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Thereafter in compliance to the directions given in the aforesaid order, the AO conducted the remand proceedings and passed the draft assessment order 21st December, 2015 under Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the date of payment of self assessment tax of Rs.3,41,33,988/- till the date of actual refund. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Revenue is before

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. DINESH SHRAMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowing a sum of Rs.1,32,608/- u/s 48 of the IT Act, 1961 being the indexed cost of acquisition." (B.2). Vide order dated 31.10.2012 the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs.20,60,810/-. Further, in respect of addition of Rs.1,32,608/- on account of long term capital gains, the Ld.CIT(A) directed

BIMLA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year : 2014-15

disallowance of interest made by the AO u/s 244 is on account of additional demand raised as a result of above addition. But the fact of the case that the assessee paid tax of Rs. 22,82,100/- u/s 140A as per original return that the same has been refunded as a result of revised returns. The appellant

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 143(1) the Act was received with demand payable of Rs. 42,47,54,300/-. 30.09.2015 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company. 29.10.2015 The AO vide order sheet entry dated 29.10.2015 asked the assessee to remove the defect in the return of income and pay taxes u/s 140A of the Act. However

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 143(1) the Act was received with demand payable of Rs. 42,47,54,300/-. 30.09.2015 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company. 29.10.2015 The AO vide order sheet entry dated 29.10.2015 asked the assessee to remove the defect in the return of income and pay taxes u/s 140A of the Act. However