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

disallowance, if any is to be made should be restricted to a reasonable percentage of exempt income earned during the year i.e 0.05% of average value of shares or 2% of the exempt income. 15. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the AY under consideration is AY 2005-06. The relevant section

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

disallowance, if any is to be made should be restricted to a reasonable percentage of exempt income earned during the year i.e 0.05% of average value of shares or 2% of the exempt income. 15. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the AY under consideration is AY 2005-06. The relevant section

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

disallowance, if any is to be made should be restricted to a reasonable percentage of exempt income earned during the year i.e 0.05% of average value of shares or 2% of the exempt income. 15. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the AY under consideration is AY 2005-06. The relevant section

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

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. 14. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the adjustment of Rs. 38,82,000/- in the value of closing inventory in respect of proportionate amount of depreciation on model fee incurred during the year debited to the profit and loss account. 15

DDIT (E), DELHI vs. M/S. ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. 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. 15,29,325/- made by the AO on account of disallowance

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

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

disallowance under rule 8D of the income tax rules 1962. The fact shows that During the relevant previous year, the appellant company earned dividend/interest income of Rs. 22.32 crores from investments in shares, bonds, and mutual funds, which was exempt under section 10(34)/10(35)/10(15

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

MINDA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

CHEMINVEST LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AKM SYSTEMS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

EICHER LTD. vs. COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL PEROT SYSTEMS LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen