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

disallowance is reasonable. 2. Assessee's Claim on Surcharge Rates—Conflation of Rates: The assessee argued that surcharge was also deductible (at 0.04 on section 194C and 0.244 if exceeding Rs. 10 lacs, etc.) and that when the assessee's deposits are viewed inclusively of surcharge, the amount is adequate. However, surcharge is not part of "TDS" under section 194

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

disallowance is reasonable. 2. Assessee's Claim on Surcharge Rates—Conflation of Rates: The assessee argued that surcharge was also deductible (at 0.04 on section 194C and 0.244 if exceeding Rs. 10 lacs, etc.) and that when the assessee's deposits are viewed inclusively of surcharge, the amount is adequate. However, surcharge is not part of "TDS" under section 194

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

disallowing deduction under section 80IC of the Act by an amount of Rs. 194,72,20,072 in respect of certain

ASSERTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 1d. AR submits that section 40(a)(ia) was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and applicable from AY 2015-16 onwards and therefore, the provision u/s 40(a)(ia) are not applicable to the year under appeal. With respect to the application of section 194

TRIVENI TURBINE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant holding that donations forming part of CSR expenditure is not allowable as deduction under section 80G of the Act. 4. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid issue is no longer re-integra and it has been held by various Benches of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the following cases

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

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

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

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

194 and Rs.6667,49,45,379/- respectively declared by the appellant in the return of income. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP grossly erred in making disallowance of Rs.212,15,413 under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

disallowance under Section 43B of Rs.4,48,19,194/- and Rs.17,325/- on account of finance charges and PF/ESI dues

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 2,25,21,366 made by the AO under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D is unsustainable and bad in law. Section 14A does not apply to income earned from securitization trust asit is taxable under section 115TA of the Act: It is submitted that the income received by the assessee from securitization trust 19. is taxed under

SH. SURENDRA KUMAR WADHWA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Surendra Kumar Wadhwa, C/O- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -20(2), Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, 14, School New Delhi Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aabpw0250F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Order Dated 27/01/2014 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2000-10, Raising Following Grounds: 1. That, The Assessment Order & The Appellate Order Are Based On Conjucture & Surmises & Against The Facts Of The Case & The Law Laid Down In This Respect. 2. That, The Assessing Officer & The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Taxing The Commission Payable Of Rs. 4,08,080 In This Year, While This Amount Belongs To The Subsequent Year When The Bills Were Raised & The Amount Was Received. The Appellant Has Never Offered To Tax In This Year Rs. 4,08,080. The Submission Of The Assessing Officer In This Respect Is His Words & Not The Words Of The Appellant. The Affidavit Can Be Submitted For The Confirmation Of This Submission. 3. That, The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Considering The Loan Processing Fees As A Capital Expenditure Instead Of Revenue Expenditure. The Loan Processing Fees Payable To Bank Is A Bank Charges For Rendering Services For Granting The Loan For Car For Business Purpose. This Amount Cannot Be Considered As Capital Expenditure. This Is Revenue Expenditure. 4. That, The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Saying That The Amount Of Rs. 3,90,579 May Be Reduced From The Income For The A.Y. 2010- 11 If Such Amount Has Indeed Been Taxed Twice.

disallowed accordingly. Before learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee submitted that it was receiving the commission on behalf of various companies/firms for supplying goods to various State Transport Corporation and the commission of the assessee was due only when the money was received by those companies/firms upon acceptance of the goods by the respective State Transport Corporation

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

194-I. submitted that the assessee was liable to deduct tax under section 194I of the Act on the rent and the Assessing Officer (TDS) was justified in raising demand under section under section 201(1)/201(1)(A) of the Act. Further, the Ld. Sr. DR, emphasizing on para 4.2.13 to 4.2.15 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

194-I. submitted that the assessee was liable to deduct tax under section 194I of the Act on the rent and the Assessing Officer (TDS) was justified in raising demand under section under section 201(1)/201(1)(A) of the Act. Further, the Ld. Sr. DR, emphasizing on para 4.2.13 to 4.2.15 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

194-I. submitted that the assessee was liable to deduct tax under section 194I of the Act on the rent and the Assessing Officer (TDS) was justified in raising demand under section under section 201(1)/201(1)(A) of the Act. Further, the Ld. Sr. DR, emphasizing on para 4.2.13 to 4.2.15 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

194-I. submitted that the assessee was liable to deduct tax under section 194I of the Act on the rent and the Assessing Officer (TDS) was justified in raising demand under section under section 201(1)/201(1)(A) of the Act. Further, the Ld. Sr. DR, emphasizing on para 4.2.13 to 4.2.15 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order

MANSAROVER BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M/S Mansarover Builders (Pvt) Ltd. Dcit/Acit, 48/12, Commercial Centre, Circle-6(1), Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri Room No. 413, Vs. New Delhi- 110021 C. R. Building, New Delhi Pan : Aaacm6591R (Appellant) (Respondent)

194/- disallowed by the appellant company in its return of income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the ground of appeal at a later stage. 2. Brief facts of case are as under assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 5,67,8,170/-. The said return was processed under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Disallowance by applying Rule 8D of the Rules was computed at Rs.5,36,393/-. As the assessee had disallowed Rs.2,76,194