ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 14A and computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs.1,53,47,590/- as the appellant had disclosed dividend income (exempt) of Rs. 30,32,862/- The AO computed the disallowance by taking 0.5% of average value investment as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), and after allowing credit of Rs. 36,50,000/- disallowed by 24 PTC India

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 14A and computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs.1,53,47,590/- as the appellant had disclosed dividend income (exempt) of Rs. 30,32,862/- The AO computed the disallowance by taking 0.5% of average value investment as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), and after allowing credit of Rs. 36,50,000/- disallowed by 24 PTC India

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 14A and computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs.1,53,47,590/- as the appellant had disclosed dividend income (exempt) of Rs. 30,32,862/- The AO computed the disallowance by taking 0.5% of average value investment as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), and after allowing credit of Rs. 36,50,000/- disallowed by 24 PTC India

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

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, held that the said rule, being a substantive one, cannot be regarded as merely clarificatory and the same has been held to be applicable prospectively: • Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. DOT: 394 ITR 449 (SC); 13 ITA No. 7552 & CO. 27/Del./2018 • Maxopp Investment

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowed the claim in the AYs in issue i.e. AYs 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 on the ground that, it could be claimed only in the hands of the demerged company i.e. NIIT Ltd. and not in the hands of the appellant/assessee i.e. NIIT Technologies Ltd. This view has been sustained both by CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowed the claim in the AYs in issue i.e. AYs 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 on the ground that, it could be claimed only in the hands of the demerged company i.e. NIIT Ltd. and not in the hands of the appellant/assessee i.e. NIIT Technologies Ltd. This view has been sustained both by CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowed the claim in the AYs in issue i.e. AYs 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 on the ground that, it could be claimed only in the hands of the demerged company i.e. NIIT Ltd. and not in the hands of the appellant/assessee i.e. NIIT Technologies Ltd. This view has been sustained both by CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowed by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A). The learned counsel referred to pages 2, 7 and 11 of the paper-book to substantiate that said deduction under section 35DD of the Act was allowed to the assessee in assessment at 2004-05; 2005-06 and 2006-07. To support the rule of consistency, the learned counsel relied on the decision

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowed by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A). The learned counsel referred to pages 2, 7 and 11 of the paper-book to substantiate that said deduction under section 35DD of the Act was allowed to the assessee in assessment at 2004-05; 2005-06 and 2006-07. To support the rule of consistency, the learned counsel relied on the decision

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowed by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A). The learned counsel referred to pages 2, 7 and 11 of the paper-book to substantiate that said deduction under section 35DD of the Act was allowed to the assessee in assessment at 2004-05; 2005-06 and 2006-07. To support the rule of consistency, the learned counsel relied on the decision

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowed by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A). The learned counsel referred to pages 2, 7 and 11 of the paper-book to substantiate that said deduction under section 35DD of the Act was allowed to the assessee in assessment at 2004-05; 2005-06 and 2006-07. To support the rule of consistency, the learned counsel relied on the decision

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB was assessed at Rs. 5,92,24,133/- and the tax due thereon was fully adjusted against the taxes already paid by the assessee. Thus, the summary of the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are as follows: i) Interest on SDF loan: Addition of Rs.63,90,848/- (ii) ERP, Software & Design Development & BPR Expenses: Addition