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

section 143(3) of the Act and it cannot be said that the issue of valuation of closing stock has not been examined, and (ii) secondly, there is no mistake in the accounting/valuation method followed by the appellant in relation to the aforesaid expenses, since the issue of inclusion of the aforesaid expenses in closing inventory would arise only

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 45.8. Without prejudice the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not holding that depreciation was allowable on the payment of export commission if the same were to constitute capital expenditure. 46. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in making ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.12

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

206,54,39,838.00 from Mutual Fund under Section 10(35) of the Act. The total investment in these assets is Rs. 5,630 crores in the A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 1,274 crores in the A.Y. 2011-12. 3. It is seen from the facts that the Appellant has itself disallowed

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

206,54,39,838.00 from Mutual Fund under Section 10(35) of the Act. The total investment in these assets is Rs. 5,630 crores in the A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 1,274 crores in the A.Y. 2011-12. 3. It is seen from the facts that the Appellant has itself disallowed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

206(AII) [mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee would not mean that there was concealment of income] iii) CIT vs. Nepani Biri Co. Trust, (1991) 190 ITR 402, 403(AII) [where the difference between the income returned and the income assessed was due to 'disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee] iv) CIT vs. Dhamchand 1. Shah

PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

Section 14A. (PB 188) The ld. AR argued that the AO did not note any satisfaction in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii). He relied on the various case laws:  CIT Vs Syntex Industries Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.)  Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd. (2012) 206

PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

Section 14A. (PB 188) The ld. AR argued that the AO did not note any satisfaction in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii). He relied on the various case laws:  CIT Vs Syntex Industries Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.)  Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd. (2012) 206

PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

Section 14A. (PB 188) The ld. AR argued that the AO did not note any satisfaction in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii). He relied on the various case laws:  CIT Vs Syntex Industries Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.)  Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd. (2012) 206

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PETRONET LNG LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

Section 14A. (PB 188) The ld. AR argued that the AO did not note any satisfaction in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii). He relied on the various case laws:  CIT Vs Syntex Industries Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.)  Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd. (2012) 206

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PETRONET LNG LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

Section 14A. (PB 188) The ld. AR argued that the AO did not note any satisfaction in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii). He relied on the various case laws:  CIT Vs Syntex Industries Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.)  Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd. (2012) 206

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PETRONET LNG LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

Section 14A. (PB 188) The ld. AR argued that the AO did not note any satisfaction in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii). He relied on the various case laws:  CIT Vs Syntex Industries Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.)  Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd. (2012) 206

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

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

section 80IA(8) of the Act and the transaction was a genuine business transaction borne out of commercial expediency. We also find that the Tribunal has, in the appeal for the assessment years 2009-10, 2012-13 and 2013-14, decided the issue in favor of the assessee company following the aforesaid order passed for assessment years

DIRECTOR OF INCO:ME-TAX-I vs. JC BAMFORD EXCAVATORS LIMITED,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

disallowed as per Provisions of PGBP Donation 1,300,000 Provision for diminution in the value of Investment 43,841,819 Provision for Leave Encashment 745 Loss on Sale of Investment Gratuity Provision 490,436 Interest Paid on TDS Less: Interest Expenses un allocated 251,139,740 44,402,599 206

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)

disallowed the aforesaid amount of Rs.78,01,08,417/- on the ground that deduction under Section 43B of the Act is allowable only where the amount claimed as deduction on actual payment basis is charged to the P&L Account. It is primarily the case of the Assessing Officer that the amount paid by the assessee is in the nature

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 of Rs.25,44,063/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel submits that the issue squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 in ITA. Nos. 5345 to 5348/Del/2018 order dated 22.10.2021, which

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 of Rs.25,44,063/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel submits that the issue squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 in ITA. Nos. 5345 to 5348/Del/2018 order dated 22.10.2021, which

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SIL INVESTMENT LTD., RAJASTHAN

In the result cross objection filed by assessee stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri R S Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Dcit M/S Sil Investment Ltd. Circle 8(1), Vs. Pachpahar Road Room No.248 Bhawani Mandi C.R.Bldg. Jhalawar Ip Estate Rajasthan 326 502 New Delhi 110 002 A N D Cross Objection No. 142/Del/2015 (In Ita No. 5242/Del/2014) A.Y. 2011-12 M/S Sil Investment Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 8(1) Jhalawar, Rajasthan New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R. Respondent By Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Anshul, C.A. Date Of Hearing 16Th November, 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 22Nd November, 2017 Order Per Beena A Pillaithe Present Appeal By Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By Assessee Has Been Filed Against Order Dated 24/07/14 Passed By Ld. Cit (A)-11, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2011-12 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance under section 14 A to an extent of Rs.4,93,32,206/-, after giving credit to the suo moto

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

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of Rs.630.79 lakhs made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. 4.3 Before us, the Ld. counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer in assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 has decided the securities held by the assessee bank as a stock-in-trade for the purpose of Income-tax. Accordingly, he submitted that it stands settled that