DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. GE PACKAGED POWER INC

209(1)(d). Clearly, the anomaly of an assessee denying tax liability (whether under a bona fide mistake or by deceit), thereby not suffering a tax deduction at source, and still being permitted a tax credit for the tax deductible, is remedied after the Finance Act, 2012. 19. Alcatel Lucent (supra), in any event, can be distinguished on the ground

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INDIA BULLS POWER LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed in regard to the first question

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. India Bulls Power Ltd. (Now Known Circle-21(1), As Rattan India Power Ltd.) New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-B, Worldmark-1, Aerocity, New Delhi- 110 037 Pan Aalcs2063D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 23,75,000/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D which is as under:- Particulars FY2010-2011 FY2009-2010 Total Investment (A) 16,186,211,620 13,438,841,620 Less: investment not consider for 14A Investment in subsidiaries company 8,900,855,552 7,209

LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudharyita Nos.4533, 4534 & 6295/Del/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit 9, K-Block Connaught Circle – 15(2) Place, New Delhi-110 001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 0087 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Arvind Bansal, Sr. D.R. & Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit 9, K-Block Connaught Circle – 15(2) Circus, New Delhi-110 001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 0087 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

section 14A of the Act, whereas, as per the revised working furnished by the assessee- appellant relying on latest judicial pronouncements of jurisdictional high court, the disallowance should have been Rs.13,03,209

LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudharyita Nos.4533, 4534 & 6295/Del/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit 9, K-Block Connaught Circle – 15(2) Place, New Delhi-110 001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 0087 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Arvind Bansal, Sr. D.R. & Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit 9, K-Block Connaught Circle – 15(2) Circus, New Delhi-110 001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 0087 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

section 14A of the Act, whereas, as per the revised working furnished by the assessee- appellant relying on latest judicial pronouncements of jurisdictional high court, the disallowance should have been Rs.13,03,209

LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudharyita Nos.4533, 4534 & 6295/Del/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit 9, K-Block Connaught Circle – 15(2) Place, New Delhi-110 001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 0087 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Arvind Bansal, Sr. D.R. & Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit 9, K-Block Connaught Circle – 15(2) Circus, New Delhi-110 001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 0087 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

section 14A of the Act, whereas, as per the revised working furnished by the assessee- appellant relying on latest judicial pronouncements of jurisdictional high court, the disallowance should have been Rs.13,03,209

LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudharyita Nos.4533, 4534 & 6295/Del/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit 9, K-Block Connaught Circle – 15(2) Place, New Delhi-110 001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 0087 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Arvind Bansal, Sr. D.R. & Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit 9, K-Block Connaught Circle – 15(2) Circus, New Delhi-110 001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 0087 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

section 14A of the Act, whereas, as per the revised working furnished by the assessee- appellant relying on latest judicial pronouncements of jurisdictional high court, the disallowance should have been Rs.13,03,209

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ALPHA G. CORP. DEVELOPMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merit is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2008-09

disallowance has been made by the assessee under section 14A of the Act. On the other hand assessee has debited financial expenses of Rs. 53,33,209

LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the consequences shall follow

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit, K-9, Connaught Circus, Circle-15(2), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl0087H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 37 of the Act, which disallowance is unjustified and untenable in law and thus, should be deleted, as such. 2.1 That in doing so, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the said disallowance by ignoring the replies/ evidences furnished by the assessee appellant and the learned CIT (A) has sustained the said disallowance

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

209/- 122. The assessee suo moto disallowed Rs. 1,00,52,604/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. Disallowance has been computed by the assessee as under: S. No. Particulars Amount - Direct expenditure 1 Rs.91,27,768 Interest expenditure incurred during the year attributed in the ratio of average value of investments resulting in exempt income to 2 average value of total

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

disallowance of its claim for an additional deduction of Rs. 8,36,29,209/- under section 10A(1A) of the Act, 52. Brief

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

disallowance of its claim for an additional deduction of Rs. 8,36,29,209/- under section 10A(1A) of the Act, 52. Brief

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

disallowance and therefore, by taking recourse to section 14A of the Act, the amount cannot be added back to book profit under clause (/) of section 115JB of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that similar view, which has been taken by this court in Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd. (supra) was also taken by High Court of Bombay

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 18(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

disallowance and therefore, by taking recourse to section 14A of the Act, the amount cannot be added back to book profit under clause (/) of section 115JB of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that similar view, which has been taken by this court in Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd. (supra) was also taken by High Court of Bombay

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

disallowance and therefore, by taking recourse to section 14A of the Act, the amount cannot be added back to book profit under clause (/) of section 115JB of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that similar view, which has been taken by this court in Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd. (supra) was also taken by High Court of Bombay

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT LTD. (FORMERLY KNWON AS UNITECH DEVELOPERS AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(2), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

disallowance and therefore, by taking recourse to section 14A of the Act, the amount cannot be added back to book profit under clause (/) of section 115JB of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that similar view, which has been taken by this court in Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd. (supra) was also taken by High Court of Bombay

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT LTD. (FORMERLY KNWON AS UNITECH DEVELOPERS AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(2), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

disallowance and therefore, by taking recourse to section 14A of the Act, the amount cannot be added back to book profit under clause (/) of section 115JB of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that similar view, which has been taken by this court in Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd. (supra) was also taken by High Court of Bombay

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

disallowance and therefore, by taking recourse to section 14A of the Act, the amount cannot be added back to book profit under clause (/) of section 115JB of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that similar view, which has been taken by this court in Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd. (supra) was also taken by High Court of Bombay

VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the issues raised in the captioned appeals are decided

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The imposition of penalty on this score is thus deleted. 6. The next issue concerns imposition of penalty on club expenses incurred Rs.6,94,890/- (Assessment Year 2011-12) and Rs.9,28,880/- (Assessment Year 2013-14) disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee in this regard submits that the assessee