M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowed a sum of Rs.78,18,311 being the SAR expenses claimed as a deduction by the Appellant. Vide order dated November 6, 2016 passed under Section 154

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowed a sum of Rs.78,18,311 being the SAR expenses claimed as a deduction by the Appellant. Vide order dated November 6, 2016 passed under Section 154

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowed a sum of Rs.78,18,311 being the SAR expenses claimed as a deduction by the Appellant. Vide order dated November 6, 2016 passed under Section 154

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowed a sum of Rs.78,18,311 being the SAR expenses claimed as a deduction by the Appellant. Vide order dated November 6, 2016 passed under Section 154

SHIV SHAKTI TRADERS,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

disallowance of Rs. 23,72,40,000/- under section 40A(3) as per the audit objection raised by the RAP. 4. The assessee challenged the rectificatory order under section 154

NHPC LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu, Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

154 of the Income-tax Act. 13. In so far as the second issue is concerned, i.e., excess deduction allowed on account of depreciation, on a perusal of the original order of assessment under section 143(3) (annexure 5) clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer at that stage had, in fact, applied his judicial mind and "disallowed

THE KADIYAN COOP. L&C SOCIETY LTD.,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Kadiyan Coop L&C Society Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle Panipat V&Po Sewah, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Aaalt0541R (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow deduction of ₹ 5 40639/– claimed under section 80P (2) of the act out of the total income of ₹ 590639/–. Once again, notice under section 154

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

ASHISH DHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiashish Dhawan, Vs. Acit, 55-A, Jor Bagh, Circle-31(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Adlpd9621N (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 154 of the income tax act. This adjustment made by the assessing officer was subject matter of the dispute

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the actual exempt dividend income. 2. Each of the aforesaid contentions are elaborated hereunder: Re (a): Amendment in section 14A - prospective and not retrospective 3. Kind attention is, at the outset, invited to the provisions of section 14A of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f

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

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." Q 11. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under section 295 of the said Act read with sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act, made the "Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." Q 11. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under section 295 of the said Act read with sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act, made the "Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 11. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under section 295 of the said Act read with sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act, made the “Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VOU INVESTMENT LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 11. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under section 295 of the said Act read with sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act, made the “Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 11. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under section 295 of the said Act read with sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act, made the “Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 11. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under section 295 of the said Act read with sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act, made the “Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 11. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under section 295 of the said Act read with sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act, made the “Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 11. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under section 295 of the said Act read with sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act, made the “Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules