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

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance by AO. 19. In view of the aforesaid profile/ roles and responsibilities and contributions/ services of Mrs. Malvika Rai, it has been submitted that the aforesaid salary paid to her was very much justified and not at all unreasonable/ excessive and ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 16 cannot, in any manner, be considered as giving

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance by AO. 19. In view of the aforesaid profile/ roles and responsibilities and contributions/ services of Mrs. Malvika Rai, it has been submitted that the aforesaid salary paid to her was very much justified and not at all unreasonable/ excessive and ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 16 cannot, in any manner, be considered as giving

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance by AO. 19. In view of the aforesaid profile/ roles and responsibilities and contributions/ services of Mrs. Malvika Rai, it has been submitted that the aforesaid salary paid to her was very much justified and not at all unreasonable/ excessive and ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 16 cannot, in any manner, be considered as giving

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance by AO. 19. In view of the aforesaid profile/ roles and responsibilities and contributions/ services of Mrs. Malvika Rai, it has been submitted that the aforesaid salary paid to her was very much justified and not at all unreasonable/ excessive and ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 16 cannot, in any manner, be considered as giving

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance by AO. 19. In view of the aforesaid profile/ roles and responsibilities and contributions/ services of Mrs. Malvika Rai, it has been submitted that the aforesaid salary paid to her was very much justified and not at all unreasonable/ excessive and ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 16 cannot, in any manner, be considered as giving

M/S BHARTI HEXACOM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and department’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra: & Shri A.T. Varkey:

1) with section 160 and section 161 which are machinery sections (See The Law and Practice of Income Tax by Kanga and Palkhivala, eighth edition, at pages 1268 and 1269). (b) Similarly, section 40(a)(iii), quoted above, which finds place in Chapter N (computation of business income), inter alia, states that any payment which is chargeable under the head

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

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

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

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of INR 516339/- under section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of INR 516339/- under section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of INR 516339/- under section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed

M/S. AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‗the Act‘) and Rules of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‗the Rules‘), dealing with the issue of selecting the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of an international transaction – Relevant sections of the Act ―92. (1) Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard

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

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

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

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