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

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

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowance of Rs.212,15,413 under section l4A read with Rule 8D of the Rules in computing book profit under section 115J8 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in allowing claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs.17,12,04,096 under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the same treating the same as capital expenditure. The Ld. DRP also held that entire amount of Rs. 5 853 5098 to be capital in nature and observed that the appellant had claimed depreciation at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 81,94,914/– on the said expenditure. The Ld. DRP did not noticed that assessee had bifurcated

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 6.11. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act is incorrect since while

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

disallowed the\ndeduction being claimed by the appellant in respect of expenditure incurred at Rohtak\nfacility. He submitted that subsequently, the assessee filed a writ petition before the\nHon’ble Delhi High Court against the action of the assessing officer in denying\napproval for expenses incurred for Rohtak facility and the Hon’ble High Court, vide\norder dated 04.08.2017 issued

ACIT, TDS, NOIDA vs. M/S ST MICROELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Tds, Noida Plot No. 11, Knoledge Park-111, Greater Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacs3406M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Ca Date Of Hearing 19.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19/07/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Noida For Assessment Year 2007-08 Raising Following Grounds: “That Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Directing To Delete The Order U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The I.T. Act Passed By The Assessing Officer Ignoring The Fact That Assessee Must Follow The Mercantile System Of Accounting For These Payments & Erred In Further Allowing The Assessee To Follow The Cash System Of Accounting For These Payments Solely On The Grund Of Sap Environment Being Followed By The Assessee.” 2. The Facts In Brief Are That During Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Verification By The Tds Assessing Officer, It Was Observed That Tax Was Not Deducted On Certain Expenses Debited In Profit & Loss. The Assessing Officer Called For The Tax Audit Report In Form No. 3 Cd & Observed That The Auditor Had Also Pointed

disallowed in the computation of income under section 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia). In view of this even though the contention is correct being a legal issue, there is no need for adjudicating the matter as the grounds raised have been held in favour of assessee. AO is directed to delete the said demand so raised. Appeal

M/S. UNITECH INFRA- CON LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer, however, computed a further disallowance amounting to Rs. 7,10,476/-. The total expenditure debited in the profit and loss account was Rs. 8,69,681/- out of which the appellant had made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 1,59,205/- which left a balance

RAO KHEM CHAND VIDYA VIHAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,REWARI vs. ITO-TDS,ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowance of expenses on account of non deduction of Tds. (ii). The ITO. Tds treated that assessee - appellant as default u/s 201/201(1A), without ascertaining as to whether taxes had been deposited or not by recipient of income directly as per the mandatory provisions of Explanation to section 191

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd., A- Dcit, Circle-14(1), New Delhi 283, Ground Floor, Okhla Indl. Area-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. P.C. Parwal, Fca Date Of Hearing 08.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/01/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Wherein He Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 29/03/2012 Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Additions Under The Head Of U/S 40(A)(I) Amounting To Rs.9,14,191/- & Ltcg Amounting To Rs.41,62,154/- Holding That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Has Made Any Deliberate Attempt To Conceal Income. Ii. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Above

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the long-term capital gain 3 AY: 2007-08 amounting to Rs.41,62,154/- which was not contested by the assessee before the appellate authorities. 2.1 The facts in respect of first issue are that penalty in respect of disallowance of Rs.9,14,191

M/S GALAXY DWELLERS (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal No. 5293/Del/2013 & I.T. Appeal No.3029/Del/2014 Assessment Years : 2006–2007 & 2007-08. M/S. Galaxy Dwellers (P) Ltd., Dy. Commissioner C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Vs. Of Income Tax, D–28, South Extension, Part–I, Central Circle : 4, N E W D E L H I – 110 049. New Delhi. Pan : Aaccg 3782 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance should be made under section 40A(3) when payees are identified and genuineness of payment is not doubted. 9 I.T. Appeal No. 5293/Del/2013 AND I.T. Appeal No.3029/Del/2014 Assessment Years : 2006–2007 & 2007-08. 13. We noticed in this regard that Kolkata bench of Tribunal in the case of Sri Manoranjan Raha vs. ITO (supra) has decided this issue

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2008-09] At &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. At &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Ca Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

disallowed on account of short deduction of tax at source thereon. As submitted earlier, infrastructure cost represents bandwidth charges paid/ payable to other telecom operators for provision of telecom connectivity required for transmission of data. Further, last mile charges represent charges paid to other telecom operators towards provision of telecom connectivity services over last leg of the communication channel

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

section 145A were not applicable as the assessment year under consideration was 1995-96. In view of the detailed discussion supra with reference to the applicability of section 145A to the year in question, there can be no escape from valuation of purchase, sale and inventories under the inclusive method. We, therefore, direct the AO to recast Profit and loss

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DAAWAT FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer observing that write off of loan of Rs.31,22,886/- advanced to Mr. Amit Jain was not allowable as Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1758 & 2387/Del/2017 deduction under section 36 of the Act since the said write off did not represent investment made in the business which yielded profits in the past years, but was only

DAWAT FOODS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer observing that write off of loan of Rs.31,22,886/- advanced to Mr. Amit Jain was not allowable as Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1758 & 2387/Del/2017 deduction under section 36 of the Act since the said write off did not represent investment made in the business which yielded profits in the past years, but was only

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 145(3) of the Act to avoid specific disallowances. Rejection of books of accounts of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) therefore, is held unjustified. 7. Now, we are going to decide the appeal on merit. The first disallowance is in respect of unverifiable/unexplained purchases of Rs.2,12,26,191

PUNJAB & SIND BANK,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

191 (Kolkata –Trib.) 7. Vidyut Investments Ltd., (2006) 10 SOT 284 (Del.) 4.3.1 The Ld. counsel submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 along with the case of Maxxopp Investment limited also decided the issue of section 14A of the Act in the case of State Bank of Patiala, wherein it is held that in case

PUNJAB & SIND BANK,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

191 (Kolkata –Trib.) 7. Vidyut Investments Ltd., (2006) 10 SOT 284 (Del.) 4.3.1 The Ld. counsel submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 along with the case of Maxxopp Investment limited also decided the issue of section 14A of the Act in the case of State Bank of Patiala, wherein it is held that in case