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 37 of the LT. Act applies the test of "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" to all assessee-types, including companies. Where a company maintains vehicles or telephones that are partly for personal use by directors/officers, the personal-use component is not laid out "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" and is hence disallowable. Established

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 37 of the LT. Act applies the test of "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" to all assessee-types, including companies. Where a company maintains vehicles or telephones that are partly for personal use by directors/officers, the personal-use component is not laid out "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" and is hence disallowable. Established

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

18. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of deduction of Rs. 46,00,000/- under section

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

disallowed a sum of Rs.78,18,311 being the SAR expenses claimed as a deduction by the Appellant. Vide order dated November 6, 2016 passed 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

disallowed a sum of Rs.78,18,311 being the SAR expenses claimed as a deduction by the Appellant. Vide order dated November 6, 2016 passed under Section

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

disallowed a sum of Rs.78,18,311 being the SAR expenses claimed as a deduction by the Appellant. Vide order dated November 6, 2016 passed under Section

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

disallowed a sum of Rs.78,18,311 being the SAR expenses claimed as a deduction by the Appellant. Vide order dated November 6, 2016 passed under Section

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 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- and Rs. 18

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 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- and Rs. 18

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. 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 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- and Rs. 18

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 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- and Rs. 18

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

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

section 40A(2) of the Act, even though said parties were related to appellant in terms of AS- 18. It was observed that the assessing officer had the power to lift the corporate veil, to disallow

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act during the year under consideration. 11. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing purchases to the extent of Rs.72.40 crores made from certain parties related with the assessee, in terms of Accounting Standard 18

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)

section 14A of the Act must be directed to be restricted to exempt (dividend) income aggregating to Rs.45,06,37,556 received in the year under consideration. Re (b): Even assuming amendment to be retrospective – disallowance still to be restricted to dividend income 18

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

section 115JB, holding the same to be an unascertained liability. 8 18. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

section 14A of the said Act and disallowed the entire office and administrative expenses ofRs 25,35,482/-. The Tribunal estimated the expenditure in relation to dividend income at 10% of the dividend income and sustained the addition of Rs 8,18

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

section 14A of the said Act and disallowed the entire office and administrative expenses ofRs 25,35,482/-. The Tribunal estimated the expenditure in relation to dividend income at 10% of the dividend income and sustained the addition of Rs 8,18

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowance directed by the AO under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules was scaled down from the figure of Rs. 1,56,08,262/- to Rs. 91,18