ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 36(1)(viii). This addition may kindly be deleted. 6. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 7. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 36(1)(viii). This addition may kindly be deleted. 6. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 7. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 36(1)(viii). This addition may kindly be deleted. 6. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 7. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available

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

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance as per law. Thus, Ground Nos. 5 to 5.6 raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground Nos. 6 to 6.3 raised by the assessee are against the finding of 46. AO and Ld.DRP regarding expenditure of Rs.444,43,46,5/- incurred on account of royalty holding same to be capital expenditure

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance as per law. Thus, Ground Nos. 5 to 5.6 raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground Nos. 6 to 6.3 raised by the assessee are against the finding of 46. AO and Ld.DRP regarding expenditure of Rs.444,43,46,5/- incurred on account of royalty holding same to be capital expenditure

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

207 expenses to Serco UK Disallowance No Yes No No u/s 40(a)(i) In fact, by not making any disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act in earlier and subsequent years (except in A.Y. 2011-12 under consideration), the Revenue Department has accepted and strengthened the case of the Assessee qua salary expenses and consequently deduction

RAJESH KUMAR GARG,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

section 143(1) for the purpose of\ndisallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI since as on the date of\nissuance of intimations by the AO the subject matter was highly debatable.\nThe Tribunal observed as under:\n\n“5. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below.\nThe only issue in respect of ground nos.3

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

SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, ROHTAK CIRCLE , ROHTAK

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowances under Section 14A comprises of Interest Expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of Rs.27,18,346/- and administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.3,70,207

RAJESH KUMAR GARG,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

Section 143(1) for the purpose of\ndisallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI since as on the date of\nissuance of intimations by the AO the subject matter was highly debatable.\nThe Tribunal observed as under:\n\n“5. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below.\nThe only issue in respect of ground nos.3

MCKINSEY GLOBAL CAPABILITIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (MGCS) [MGSIPL NOW MERGED WITH MGCS],HARYANA vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5314/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mckinsey Global Capabilities & Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, Services Pvt. Ltd. (Mckinsey Global Delhi Services India Pvt. Ltd.), 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Vatika Business Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-12201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccm2356G Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025–26/1077218408(1) Dated 19.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

207 ITD 360 (Del.-Trib.) accepting the same against the department as under: “4. Heard and perused the material before us. During the course of hearing nothing was submitted with regard to ground no. 1. As with regard to ground No. 2 to 2.3, the relevant facts are that during the year under consideration, the appellant claimed deduction under section

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 143(1) for the purpose of disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI since as on the date of issuance of intimations by the AO the subject matter was highly debatable. The Tribunal observed as under: “5. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The only issue in respect of ground

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 143(1) for the purpose of disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI since as on the date of issuance of intimations by the AO the subject matter was highly debatable. The Tribunal observed as under: “5. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The only issue in respect of ground

TEJASVI SINGH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMTEK TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LTD, HARYANA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Amtek Transportation Systems Ltd., Delhi. Begampur Khatoula, Gurgaon Khandsa 104, Gurgaon – 122 004 (Haryana). (Pan : Aahca5047K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 7.86 Crore Made On Account Of Discrepancy Found In The Sales Turnover Reflected In Form 26As Vis-A-Vis Gross Sales Reported In The Profit & Loss Account By Accepting The Additional Evidence Furnished By The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact The Assessee Has Been Provided Sufficient Opportunity During The Assessment Proceedings To Furnish The Details In This Regard.

207 ITR 979) (Calcutta) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) (53 ITR 225) (SC) has decided the issue based on the material available on record. Therefore, ground no.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. With regard to merits of the issues, we observed that ld. CIT (A) has considered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA ROSHNI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. Central Circle-30, 2Nd Floor, Padma Tower-1, New Delhi. 5, Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan Aaacs3558C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and added the same to the income of the assessee and completed the assessment on total income of Rs. 63,43,56,080/- as against income declared at Rs. 60,99,93,900/-. 5. The assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) and made lengthy written submission backed with judicial precedents in the course

IL AND FS ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12(1) DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

207 The Appellant prays before Your Honour that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the disallowance, under section 144 of Rs. 29,04,23,207