ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 154 of the Act the AO has rectified the said disallowance by restricting it to Rs.50,29,087. The copy of the rectification order has been filed with your office vide our letter dated November 23, 2015 and letter dated June 17, 2016. Therefore, the ground of appeal no. 6 has been withdrawn by the appellant.” 9.7 We have

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 154 of the Act the AO has rectified the said disallowance by restricting it to Rs.50,29,087. The copy of the rectification order has been filed with your office vide our letter dated November 23, 2015 and letter dated June 17, 2016. Therefore, the ground of appeal no. 6 has been withdrawn by the appellant.” 9.7 We have

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

211, New Delhi – 110 066 C.R. Building, PAN AAECP0501C I.P. Estate New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. & Addl.CIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. Assessee by: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Department by: Shri Vivek Vardhan

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

211, New Delhi – 110 066 C.R. Building, PAN AAECP0501C I.P. Estate New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. & Addl.CIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. Assessee by: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Department by: Shri Vivek Vardhan

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

211, New Delhi – 110 066 C.R. Building, PAN AAECP0501C I.P. Estate New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. & Addl.CIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. Assessee by: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Department by: Shri Vivek Vardhan

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), 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

211, New Delhi – 110 066 C.R. Building, PAN AAECP0501C I.P. Estate New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. & Addl.CIT vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. Assessee by: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Department by: Shri Vivek Vardhan

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

disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent in nature. He further submitted that similar provision for increase in prices as at the end of the year was accepted and allowed in Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

Section 35DD of the Act. ii. Disallowance of Rs. 1,79,17,211/-; this disallowance was ordered by the AO based

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

Section 35DD of the Act. ii. Disallowance of Rs. 1,79,17,211/-; this disallowance was ordered by the AO based

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

Section 35DD of the Act. ii. Disallowance of Rs. 1,79,17,211/-; this disallowance was ordered by the AO based

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance aggregating to ₹ 1,79,17,211/-under section 14A of the Act as per method prescribed under rule 8D of Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance aggregating to ₹ 1,79,17,211/-under section 14A of the Act as per method prescribed under rule 8D of Income

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance aggregating to ₹ 1,79,17,211/-under section 14A of the Act as per method prescribed under rule 8D of Income

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance aggregating to ₹ 1,79,17,211/-under section 14A of the Act as per method prescribed under rule 8D of Income

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

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowance of Rs.212,15,413 under section l4A read with Rule 8D of the Rules in computing book profit under section 115J8 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in allowing claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs.17,12,04,096 under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the same treating the same as capital expenditure. The Ld. DRP also held that entire amount of Rs. 5 853 5098 to be capital in nature and observed that the appellant had claimed depreciation at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 81,94,914/– on the said expenditure. The Ld. DRP did not noticed that assessee had bifurcated