DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That is not the intendment of the Legislature. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that there was a legal principle as propounded by the Apex Court, the claim needs to be seen from the return of income and where such claim was correct at such point of time. Ld. Counsel also relied

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

1(SC) - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) 32 - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. TV TODAY NETWORK LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In this regard he states that this court in AIMIL Ltd. (supra), decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying upon the judgment of the Supreme court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 ITR 268 (SC), which order of the Supreme Court relates

PUBLIX REALTORS AND FACILITATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), GURGAON

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

DHARAMJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

SAMARPIT SURAKSHA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

RITU MUKHERJI,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), G B NAGAR

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

ANSAL API INFRASTRUCTURE LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,2(2),DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

VIRENDER PRATAP SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-44(6), DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

GARG HEART CENTRE & NURSING HOME P.LTYD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

GIRDHARI YADAV,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

GLOBAL GROUPWARE SOLUTIONS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.16,07,092/- made under section 36(l)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the reason that the employee's contribution to ESI and PF were deposited late. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC has erred

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

161 ITR 820 (Cal.)  CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom.)  CIT vs. M/s. Ashok Commercial Enterprises: ITA No. No.2985 of 2009 (Bom)  Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.: 358 ITR 323 (Guj)  Hero Honda Finlease Ltd vs. ACIT: ITA No. 3726 & 6102/Del/2012 (Del) 8. Further he submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under section

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

161 ITR 820 (Cal.)  CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom.)  CIT vs. M/s. Ashok Commercial Enterprises: ITA No. No.2985 of 2009 (Bom)  Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.: 358 ITR 323 (Guj)  Hero Honda Finlease Ltd vs. ACIT: ITA No. 3726 & 6102/Del/2012 (Del) 8. Further he submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under section

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

161]. The ld. CIT(A) after going through the earlier orders held that since the production has commenced now and the AO has not given any reasons for invoking the provisions of Section 40A are not attracted. The ld. CIT(A) held that these expenses are otherwise allowable as deduction now and earlier the same were disallowed owing to unreasonable

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

161]. The ld. CIT(A) after going through the earlier orders held that since the production has commenced now and the AO has not given any reasons for invoking the provisions of Section 40A are not attracted. The ld. CIT(A) held that these expenses are otherwise allowable as deduction now and earlier the same were disallowed owing to unreasonable

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

161]. The ld. CIT(A) after going through the earlier orders held that since the production has commenced now and the AO has not given any reasons for invoking the provisions of Section 40A are not attracted. The ld. CIT(A) held that these expenses are otherwise allowable as deduction now and earlier the same were disallowed owing to unreasonable