ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NEETEE CLOTHING (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

section 150 (2) of the IT Act. The action of the AO is beyond the jurisdiction enshrined under the IT Act.” 6. The revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 7. Ld DR, relying on the order of the AO, submitted that the CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance

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

DEV BHUMI DOLD CHAIN PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Disallowance of Rs.2,96,150/- under section 37 of the Act, ii. Disallowance of Rs.15,77,164/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, iii. 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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act was warranted as the said provisions were not applicable in view of the provisions of Article 24 of the Treaty. 11. That the AO has erred in law, on facts and in the circumstances of the case in allowing TDS credit of Rs.19,65,40,178/- only against Rs.20,40.80,150

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act was warranted as the said provisions were not applicable in view of the provisions of Article 24 of the Treaty. 11. That the AO has erred in law, on facts and in the circumstances of the case in allowing TDS credit of Rs.19,65,40,178/- only against Rs.20,40.80,150

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowance in terms of section 143(1) of the Act. 18. Regarding the alternate argument of the Counsel for the assessee that the claim of the assessee is allowable under Section 37 of the Act, we would like to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Jodhpur ITAT, in the case of Tarun Construction Company vs. ITO 157 taxmann.com

JAYPEE INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

150/- under section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) worked out the disallowance of Rs.12,39,14,341/- under

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

150 ITD 502 (Mum)  M/s Singh Fab P Ltd Vs ITO : ITA No. 5314/Del/2004, (Trib) (Del) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is respectfully submitted that there is no warrant to make any disallowance of the revenue portion of engineering services, since there can be no doubt or ambiguity about Gujarat Guradian Limited V DCIT DCIT V Gujarat

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

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance is called for under that Section. Accordingly, made by the learned assessing officer u/s 14A of the income tax act of ₹ 22,521,366/– is unwarranted. Further, as the assessee is granted relief on the first argument that Section 14 A is not applicable in case of bank when the investments are held as stock in trade, other arguments

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act was warranted as the\nsaid provisions were not applicable in view of the provisions of Article 24 of\nthe Treaty.\n11. That the AO has erred in law, on facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase in allowing TDS credit of Rs.19,65,40,178/- only against\nRs.20,40.80,150

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in the return filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10. Therefore, notice is not time barred. The ld AO thereafter held that the assessee has not deducted tax of Rs. 23871484/- and therefore, he treated the assessee as the „assessee in default‟ for that sum. He further charged interest u/s 201(1A) amounting

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance made in that year was deleted on the ground that since in the first place, the Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT parties were not related to the assessee company in terms of section 40A (2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of such expenses/ outgo in view of stipulations made in section 37 of the Act does not put any fetters on the eligibility under other provisions of the Act viz. Section 80G of the Act. The claim is eligible for deduction under S. 80G unless statutorily prohibited. The ld. counsel contends that there being

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 92(4) of the Act). 137. The question of aggregation and disaggregation of transactions when the TNM Method or even in other methods is sought to be applied, must have reference to the strength and weaknesses of the TNM Method or the applicable method. Aggregation of transactions is desirable and not merely permissible, if the nature of transaction