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

disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36(1)(viii

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36(1)(viii

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36(1)(viii

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

section in existence in the year under consideration. Therefore, AO is justified making disallowance but the charge of 20% of the exempt income is too high, considering the fact that the assessee had invested in the Preference shares of the Group entity in the past, not during the year under consideration. We are not inclined to accept the submissions

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

section in existence in the year under consideration. Therefore, AO is justified making disallowance but the charge of 20% of the exempt income is too high, considering the fact that the assessee had invested in the Preference shares of the Group entity in the past, not during the year under consideration. We are not inclined to accept the submissions

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

section in existence in the year under consideration. Therefore, AO is justified making disallowance but the charge of 20% of the exempt income is too high, considering the fact that the assessee had invested in the Preference shares of the Group entity in the past, not during the year under consideration. We are not inclined to accept the submissions

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

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could not be added while computing book profits as per section 115JB and declined to frame question of law. Further, the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd: 165 ITD 27 (Del Trib.), inter alia, placing reliance on the judgement of Delhi High

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

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

disallowing expenditure of Rs.54,16,55,012 (being 30% of total amount of Rs. 1,80,55,16,707) incurred towards quarterly target/turnover discount and trade discount of Rs. 17,07,28,214 (being 30% of total amount of Rs.56,90,94,045) given to the dealers/customers under section

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

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income.” 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground of appeal or deleted or amend any of the ground of appeal. 16

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

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income.” 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground of appeal or deleted or amend any of the ground of appeal. 16

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

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income.” 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground of appeal or deleted or amend any of the ground of appeal. 16

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

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income.” 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground of appeal or deleted or amend any of the ground of appeal. 16

TRIVENI TURBINE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Disallowance under Section 37(1) [Page 42, Para 8.2]: The Ld. CIT(A) noted that CSR expenditure is a mandatory statutory obligation under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 and cannot be considered as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This position is Page 8 of 16

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

16,520/-disallowed under rule 8D readwith section 14A while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

16,520/-disallowed under rule 8D readwith section 14A while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

16,520/-disallowed under rule 8D readwith section 14A while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

16,520/-disallowed under rule 8D readwith section 14A while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

16,520/-disallowed under rule 8D readwith section 14A while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower