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.

iii) of Rule 8D can be made only after considering average of investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the year under consideration and the said stand has been upheld by the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA No. 2559/Del/2016 and ITA No. 5266/Del/2016. 13 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017

ACIT, 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.

iii) of Rule 8D can be made only after considering average of investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the year under consideration and the said stand has been upheld by the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA No. 2559/Del/2016 and ITA No. 5266/Del/2016. 13 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017

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.

iii) of Rule 8D can be made only after considering average of investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the year under consideration and the said stand has been upheld by the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA No. 2559/Del/2016 and ITA No. 5266/Del/2016. 13 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017

ACIT (OSD), 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.

iii) of Rule 8D can be made only after considering average of investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the year under consideration and the said stand has been upheld by the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA No. 2559/Del/2016 and ITA No. 5266/Del/2016. 13 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017

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.

iii) of Rule 8D can be made only after considering average of investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the year under consideration and the said stand has been upheld by the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA No. 2559/Del/2016 and ITA No. 5266/Del/2016. 13 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017

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 which read as under:- “(3): The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply 0) (i) ......... (ii) ......... (iii) .......... (iv) To such income credited or paid by a firm to a partner of the firm ” 8.5 In these circumstances also the basis of disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. HEBE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the act to the assessee who has received interest free advances. If such would have been the intention of the law makers, he would have specifically mentioned the same in the above stated provisions. M/s. Hebe Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Nexgen Infracon Pvt. Ltd. are separate legal entity and income

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

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

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:

section 194A(3)(iii)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 are not applicable with regard to interest payment to SIDBI which is a financial corporation established by Act of the Parliament. c. That Below the authorities rejected the submissions/ evidences filed during the course of assessment proceedings and rectification proceeding on arbitrary grounds and passed the order

M/S. JMC AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

Accordingly this ground is allowed partly

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Jmc Automotive Vs. Ito Components Private Limited Ward-1(3), Plot No. -2, Dabua Nawada Faridabad Road, Dabua Extention Industrial Area, Faridabad Pan – Aabcj6600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

iii) of the income tax act 1961 which is bad in law and not called for. (Ground No-4) 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT (A)’), erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,42,136/- made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. ARJUN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.5 & 6 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanacit , Vs. Arjun Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 711, Filix Commercial Complex, Opp Asian Paints L.Bs Marg Bhandup W Mumbai 400078 Maharashtra (Pan: Aahca 1448 A)

disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, he observed that payments of interest on buyer’s credit to Karur Vysya Bank is exempt from TDS u/s. 194A(3)(iii

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

194A on such assured return, treating the same as interest is therefore, allowable under section 36(1) (iii). Accordingly, addition of Rs 42,87,700/- is deleted and this ground is decided in favour of the appellant.” 16. The issue is with regard to the treatment of amount paid to the buyers as assured return. It is the case

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

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)

iii) Interest on Recurring Deposits Rs. 1180887/- iv) Interest in FDR’s- Rs. 42267943/- Members v) Interest on FDR’s - Non Members I) Interest below Rs. 4107176/- Rs.10,000/- per person II) Interest above Rs. Rs. 7396057/- 10,000/- per person The Learned CIT Appeal has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.17227362/- out of the disallowance of Rs.63602481/- made

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

AJAY ALLOYS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5174/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Ajay Alloy(S) (P) Ltd., Dcit C/O Babubhai & Co., 152, Vs. Circle-2(1), Office Complex, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaeca9815E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194A of the Act were inapplicable and as such, disallowance so made and sustained is not in accordance with law. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, in any case since the payee had paid the taxes on the interest paid by the appellant company, no disallowance was warranted in view of second