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 234B and 234C of the Act. This is consequential. 23. Ground No. 4 in AY 2014-15 relates to disallowance

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 234B and 234C of the Act. This is consequential. 23. Ground No. 4 in AY 2014-15 relates to disallowance

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 234B and 234C of the Act. This is consequential. 23. Ground No. 4 in AY 2014-15 relates to disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

23. In simple words, for section 14A of the Act there must be income actually earned in the first place and such income does not form part of ‘total income’, which is defined under section accrued (or deemed to be accrued) or arising, during the relevant previous year. As a necessary corollary, the aforesaid quoted expression refers to earning

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

23 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses 17. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 of the Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 4796/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) is regarding ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses. Brief facts of the case are that

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

23 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses 17. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 of the Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 4796/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) is regarding ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses. Brief facts of the case are that

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

23 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses 17. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 of the Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 4796/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) is regarding ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses. Brief facts of the case are that

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

23 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses 17. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 of the Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 4796/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) is regarding ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses. Brief facts of the case are that

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

23 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses 17. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 of the Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 4796/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) is regarding ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses. Brief facts of the case are that

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

23 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses 17. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 of the Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 4796/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) is regarding ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses. Brief facts of the case are that

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

23 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses 17. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 of the Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 4796/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) is regarding ad-hoc disallowances of support service fee and reimbursement of expenses. Brief facts of the case are that

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 under section 14A read with Rule 8D from Rs. 2,23,87,932/- to Rs. 23,75,000/-.” 5. The Ld. DR invited

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

23,584/- was claimed under Section 10B of the Act. 4.1. The assessment concerning the appellant/assessee was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. An order to that effect was passed on 12.12.2011, wherein the appellant/assessee‟s taxable income was assessed at Rs. 34,95,45,730/-, and the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act were enhanced

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

23,584/- was claimed under Section 10B of the Act. 4.1. The assessment concerning the appellant/assessee was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. An order to that effect was passed on 12.12.2011, wherein the appellant/assessee‟s taxable income was assessed at Rs. 34,95,45,730/-, and the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act were enhanced

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

23,584/- was claimed under Section 10B of the Act. 4.1. The assessment concerning the appellant/assessee was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. An order to that effect was passed on 12.12.2011, wherein the appellant/assessee‟s taxable income was assessed at Rs. 34,95,45,730/-, and the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act were enhanced

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

PADAM CHAND GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 35(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Padam Chand Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner 1-C Court Road Civil Lines Of Income Tax, Income Tax Delhi 110054 Circle 35(1) New Delhi Pan No. Aanpg5120C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 23[1](b). However, this fact has not been considered ascertained that whether the amounts claimed by the assessee and disallowed

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14 A of the said act. 21. There are several difficulties with the argument advanced by Mr Vohra. The first of them is that in Madhavrao Scindia (supra) the Supreme Court was concerned 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 21 of 38 with the interpretation of a constitutional provision dealing with the jurisdiction of courts