DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14A was fulfilled. In such eventuality the AO is required by the mandate of Rule 8D to follow Rule 8D(2). Clauses 1, 2 and 3 detail the methodology to be adopted. Clauses are of importance, they read as follows: The AO, instead of adoptins the averase value of investment of which income is not part of the total

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

220 286,85,63,149 Explanation a(ii) and applied valuation as Total Assets per Rule 11UA. (A) However , while applying Rule 11UA the learned AO failed to apply the complete TDS payable 43,63,060 - 43,63,060 formula and failed to took factor of Rs. 10, and if said factor would have been taken

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

220 286,85,63,149 Explanation a(ii) and applied valuation as Total Assets per Rule 11UA. (A) However , while applying Rule 11UA the learned AO failed to apply the complete TDS payable 43,63,060 - 43,63,060 formula and failed to took factor of Rs. 10, and if said factor would have been taken

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2007 – 08 and 2008 – 09 we set-aside this ground of appeal back to the file of the learned assessing officer. 49. Ground number 13 is with respect to Proportionate cost of Model Fee considered in valuation of closing stock

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37(1) requires expenditure to be laid out "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business." This requires: 1. Clear identification of the expenditure's purpose 2. Documentary evidence of agreement 3. Evidence of actual service delivery or consideration provided The Percept MOU fails all three criteria: (a) Undefined fee basis: The MOU states Sahara would pay Percept

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37(1) requires expenditure to be laid out "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business." This requires: 1. Clear identification of the expenditure's purpose 2. Documentary evidence of agreement 3. Evidence of actual service delivery or consideration provided The Percept MOU fails all three criteria: (a) Undefined fee basis: The MOU states Sahara would pay Percept

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37(1) requires expenditure to be laid out "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business." This requires: 1. Clear identification of the expenditure's purpose 2. Documentary evidence of agreement 3. Evidence of actual service delivery or consideration provided The Percept MOU fails all three criteria: (a) Undefined fee basis: The MOU states Sahara would pay Percept

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) is to be deleted. 14.96. It would be pertinent to point that section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from

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

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

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

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

2 - Grant of License and Exclusivity ii) ARTICLE 3-No sublicense iii) ARTICLE 9 - Use and Disclosure of Technical Information iv) ARTICLE 13 - Terms of agreement (upto 30.06.2007) v) ARTICLE 21/22 Termination/Effect of Expiry and Termination vi) ARTICLE 25/26 Certain Prohibitions/Maintenance of Secrecy To the same effect are the following clauses placing restrictions on use of knowhow by the assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. M/S DART INFRABUILD (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Under Section 68 of the Act, the AO had made an addition amounting to Rs. 25,07,50,000/, besides initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9.1 The addition amounting to Rs. 25,07,50,000/- was on account of monies received by the respondent/assessee towards share capital

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of INR 516339/- under section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of INR 516339/- under section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of INR 516339/- under section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding