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.

v. JCIT: 320 ITR 577 held that the credit entry in each and every individual debtor’s account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand

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.

v. JCIT: 320 ITR 577 held that the credit entry in each and every individual debtor’s account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand

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.

v. JCIT: 320 ITR 577 held that the credit entry in each and every individual debtor’s account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand

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.

v. JCIT: 320 ITR 577 held that the credit entry in each and every individual debtor’s account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand

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.

v. JCIT: 320 ITR 577 held that the credit entry in each and every individual debtor’s account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand

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

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

V. Rajkumar, Ld. Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Anuj Garg, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13.03.2023 Date of order : 29.03.2023 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 07.09.2021, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

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)

V. Disallowance out of Entertainment Expenses Rs. 59,480 /- VI. Disallowance out of staff welfare Expenses Rs.4,085/- VII. Disallowance out of Miscellaneous Expenses Rs. 1,30,778/- VIII. Disallowance out of Honorarium Expenses Rs.1.58,719/- IX. Disallowance out of General body meeting Expenses Rs.41,184/- X. Disallowance out of Repairs and renovation Expenses ' Rs.1,27,823/- XL Disallowances

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

v. ACIT, 56-B, Dilshad Garden, Circle-5(2), G.T. Road, Shahdara, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCC7434J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri C.S. Anand, Adv. Respondent by: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 21 04 2023 Date of pronouncement: 21 04 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed

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

v. Α. Seetharama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526,\nthat under rule 27(1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though

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

POWERGRID RAMPUR SAMBHAL TRANSMISSION LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 20(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

disallowed in the Intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act.\n5.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee company is engaged in\nthe construction/development of a project, and accordingly, all the expenses\nincurred during the construction phase are capitalised under the head capital\nwork-in-progress (CWIP). Certain advances are also given by the assessee to\nthe contractors

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]

v. Whether on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in ignoring the facts that the assessce company has not provided any documentary evidence regarding giving of loans to its sister concern out of interest free funds received from advance from customers, loans from other group entities etc. for utilization of the interest free funds

JAI BHAGWAN,VPO BADSHAHPUR,GURGAON,HR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON,HARYANA

The appeal stands allowed and the concurrent findings of the AO and CIT(A) are hereby affirmed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrajai Bhagwan Vs. Income Tax Officer Vpo Badshahpur Income Tax Building Gurgaon Gurugram- 122001 Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amapb8989P Appellant .. Respondent

194A and previous decisions on the issue laid down the proposition that interest received as income on delayed payment of the compensation determined under Section 28 or 31 of the Acquisition Act is a taxable event being a revenue receipt. [Ref: Para 10 of the order]. 3. The interpretation of the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

V. Rajakumar, Adv Department By : Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- Page 1 of 12 ITA No. 2712 & 3039 /DEL/2024 Punjab National Bank [A.Y 2020-21] Both the above captioned cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of the NFAC, New Delhi

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

V. Rajakumar, Adv Department By : Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- Page 1 of 12 ITA No. 2712 & 3039 /DEL/2024 Punjab National Bank [A.Y 2020-21] Both the above captioned cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of the NFAC, New Delhi

DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS &INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

section 194A of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 191,34,88,102/- made on account of interest income generated on the funds from Gol ignoring the fact that tax is attracted at the point when the income is earned