DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

3 of the Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No. 1005/Del/2018 A.Y 2013-14 and ITA No. 7553/Del/2018 for A.Y 2015-16. 29. It is further observed that in the Assessment Year i.e. A.Y 2014-15 the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a contrary view that was taken in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and by distinguishing the above

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

3 of the Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No. 1005/Del/2018 A.Y 2013-14 and ITA No. 7553/Del/2018 for A.Y 2015-16. 29. It is further observed that in the Assessment Year i.e. A.Y 2014-15 the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a contrary view that was taken in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and by distinguishing the above

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

3 of the Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No. 1005/Del/2018 A.Y 2013-14 and ITA No. 7553/Del/2018 for A.Y 2015-16. 29. It is further observed that in the Assessment Year i.e. A.Y 2014-15 the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a contrary view that was taken in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and by distinguishing the above

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

3 of the Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No. 1005/Del/2018 A.Y 2013-14 and ITA No. 7553/Del/2018 for A.Y 2015-16. 29. It is further observed that in the Assessment Year i.e. A.Y 2014-15 the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a contrary view that was taken in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and by distinguishing the above

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

3 of the Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No. 1005/Del/2018 A.Y 2013-14 and ITA No. 7553/Del/2018 for A.Y 2015-16. 29. It is further observed that in the Assessment Year i.e. A.Y 2014-15 the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a contrary view that was taken in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and by distinguishing the above

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. MODESTY GARMENTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Acit Vs. M/S Modesty Garments, Circle-28(1), B-304, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aaafm1598F (Appellant) (Respondent)

194A(3)(iv) of the Act. The explanation was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who disallowed the said interest debited to P&L account observing inter alia that interest payment to partners is not authorised by the deed of partnership. He, therefore, made the disallowance under section

ANAND PRAKASH,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

194A of the Act and consequently disallowance were carried out under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the matter, the ld. counsel pointed out that the payees are reputed companies and the corresponding income have been included in the respective returns of the payees. Thus, no additions/disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are permitted in view of plethora

ANAND PRAKASH,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

194A of the Act and consequently disallowance were carried out under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the matter, the ld. counsel pointed out that the payees are reputed companies and the corresponding income have been included in the respective returns of the payees. Thus, no additions/disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are permitted in view of plethora

ANAND PRAKASH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

194A of the Act and consequently disallowance were carried out under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the matter, the ld. counsel pointed out that the payees are reputed companies and the corresponding income have been included in the respective returns of the payees. Thus, no additions/disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are permitted in view of plethora

STERNAL BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 24(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

disallowance was sustained for which assessee is in appeal raising following grounds:- “1) That the addition of Rs.29,94,000/- is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The CIT (Appeal) has also grossly erred in law in upholding the addition. The addition of Rs.29,94,000/- is liable to be deleted. 2) That the AO and CIT (Appeal) have

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 45(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2014-15 Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, Vs. Acit, Circle-45(1) A-25, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110 027 Pan Aqbps2817E (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of the Act on total income of Rs. 57,67,290/- including therein addition of Rs. 26,21,992/- representing disallowance of interest paid on loan obtained from NBFC, M/s. HDB Financial Services Limited under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowance of Rs. 4,75,339/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

CAPITAL TRANSFORMERS P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowed the interest invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that TDS on interest has not been deducted as applicable under Section 194A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain government notifications to establish that the recipient company, i.e., RIICO is exempted

GUILDART UNIT 2,MORADABAD vs. ACIT-1, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowable u/s 40(b)(iv). However, The Learned AO has made a mistake while reading our Partnership Deed as payment of interest on Unsecured Loan was in fact allowed by our original Deed also, only rate of interest was not specified. The said confusion may had arose in the mind of the learned AO due to below mentioned facts

ECOLOGIC BUILDING SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandraita No. 800/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ecologic Building System Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Dlf-1650/51, Chhatarpur, Gadaipur Circle-8(1), Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce1444P Assessee By : Sh. Pranshu Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

disallowed the amount of interest paid to SIDBI on the grounds that no tax on such interest payment has been deducted. We find that the interest payment made to SIDBI do not attract TDS as per the provisions of Section 194A(3

RAM GARHIA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 63(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6792/Del/2018 (A.Y 2013-14)

3. Brief facts if the case are that, the assessee is a co-operative society carrying on the business of providing credit and deposits facilities. The assessee filed return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 1,76,68,630/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, assessment proceedings have to been initiated. The Assessing Officer

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

194A 2,48,603 - 22,37,431 Net Compensation credit. Further final payment of Rs. 3,88,746/- was made on 23.02.2018. v) 05.12.2017 The assessee entered into an agreement to sell 20-24 for office space in Project Digital Greens of M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd at Sector 61, Gurgaon, Haryana for Rs. 109 lacs. Till date of sale

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHATTA TOWERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt.Ltd., Circle-16(1), 614, Plot No.54, Mahatta Towers, New Delhi. B Block, Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Pan-Aaacm2109F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Koushlender Tiwari, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2024

3, 4 & 5 raised by the Revenue are inter-connected and against the deletion of addition made by the AO by invoking the provision of section 14A of the Act. . 8. Apropos to these grounds, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants