BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under section 80IA(4) made in its revised return against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 8.1 The Ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

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

4 has clarified the foregoing facts related to the dividend earned on the mutual fund units and has also given the basis of calculation of the aforesaid amount of disallowance of Rs.2,22,53,467/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Appellant has submitted as follows

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

4 has clarified the foregoing facts related to the dividend earned on the mutual fund units and has also given the basis of calculation of the aforesaid amount of disallowance of Rs.2,22,53,467/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Appellant has submitted as follows

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

4 has clarified the foregoing facts related to the dividend earned on the mutual fund units and has also given the basis of calculation of the aforesaid amount of disallowance of Rs.2,22,53,467/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Appellant has submitted as follows

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

4 has clarified the foregoing facts related to the dividend earned on the mutual fund units and has also given the basis of calculation of the aforesaid amount of disallowance of Rs.2,22,53,467/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Appellant has submitted as follows

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

172 2. Mokama- Munger NHAI Two laining with 2.43.46,365 paved shoulder of (Through Mokama Munger Project Section of NH-Bo Company Mokama- Munger Highway Ltd. 3. Danapur ROB Ircon Construction of 72,30,449 International Road over Bridge Ltd. both railway span and adjacent approaches including Reinforced Earth Wall/Retaining Wall between section Phulwarishrif- Danapur on EC Railway, Bihar 4

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

KGL NETWORK (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

4. Section 194C deals with work contracts including carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways. This section applies to payments made by a person referred to in clauses (a ) to (j) of sub-section (1) 37 ITA.No.301/Del./2018 M/s. KGL Network (P) Ltd., Delhi. to any "resident" (termed as contractor). It is clear

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)

4. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that the following two amendments have been made in section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f. 01.04.2022: a. The words, “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, for the purposes of, has been inserted in sub- section (1); and b. New Explanation has been inserted after

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

BSC C&C JV,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Bsc C&C Joint Venture, Vs. Acit, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Circle-62(1), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfb8115G Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2025

disallowances . The assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CITA. Before the Learned CITA, an additional ground was raised by the assessee with respect to claim of deduction under section 80 IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also furnished additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in support of the claim of deduction under section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4 of appeal of assessee. 79. Ground number 5 of appeal is on issue of 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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4 of appeal of assessee. 79. Ground number 5 of appeal is on issue of 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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4 of appeal of assessee. 79. Ground number 5 of appeal is on issue of 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

XL INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Xl India Business Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-9, New Delhi Ff-101, Building No. G-11, Sarines Sonia Sadan, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi Pan :Aaacx0309A (Appellant) (Respondent) & S.A. No.16/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2145/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Xl India Business Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-9, New Delhi Ff-101, Building No. G-11, Sarines Sonia Sadan, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi Pan :Aaacx0309A (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances made in the assessment order issued by the Ld. AO, is erroneous and bad in law. Part I - Corporate Tax Grounds 4. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)/AO erred in facts and in law, in upholding the taxation of interest income on short term fixed deposits amounting

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

172 (SC) Tuticorn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 285 ITR 221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

172 (SC) Tuticorn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 285 ITR 221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

172 (SC) Tuticorn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 285 ITR 221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee