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

3 in AY 2014-15 are thus decided in favour of the assessee. 15. Ground No. 6 and 7 of AY 2013-14 and Ground No. 5, 6 & 7 of AY 2014-15 relate to disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- and Rs. 2,89,99,437/- respectively claimed by the assessee under section 36 (i) (viii

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

3 in AY 2014-15 are thus decided in favour of the assessee. 15. Ground No. 6 and 7 of AY 2013-14 and Ground No. 5, 6 & 7 of AY 2014-15 relate to disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- and Rs. 2,89,99,437/- respectively claimed by the assessee under section 36 (i) (viii

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

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

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

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub-section (6) has been inserted in Section 195 which requires the payer to furnish information relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply

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

234B of the Act by first adjusting the interest computed under that section on the basis of the assessed income against the self assessment tax paid by the appellant. The appellant prays leave to add, amend, alter, delete or forego any of the grounds either before or during the course of hearing.” 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee raised

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

234B of the Act by first adjusting the interest computed under that section on the basis of the assessed income against the self assessment tax paid by the appellant. The appellant prays leave to add, amend, alter, delete or forego any of the grounds either before or during the course of hearing.” 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee raised

HONDA CARSS INDIA LTD ( A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF HONDA MOTOR INDIA P.LTD ),GR. NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowing the royalty under section 37 of the Act amounting to INR 17,02,30,000/- paid by the Assessee to Honda Motor Japan (‘HMJ’) under the license agreement dated 01.09.2010. 36. That the DCIT grossly erred in fact and in law while coming to the conclusion that the Agreement between the Assessee and HMJ was only to facilitate transfer

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

disallowance for cash payment exceeding the limit prescribed u/s 40A(3) would not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as the incurring of the said expenditure is not in dispute. (Principal CIT v Torque Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., 2016 SCC On Line P&H 7150; Solidity Developers Private Ltd v CIT 2018 SCC On Line

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act was warranted as the\nsaid provisions were not applicable in view of the provisions of Article 24 of\nthe Treaty.\n11. That the AO has erred in law, on facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase in allowing TDS credit of Rs.19,65,40,178/- only against\nRs.20

INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance of deduction for donation of Rs.23,100 without appreciating that the same was not claimed by the appellant in the return of income. Re: Not allowing credit of TDS 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) assessing officer erred in granting credit of taxes deducted at source to the extent

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs.54,031 is again made while computing total income in impugned order. Re: Ground of Appeal No.6: Interest u/s 234B/D 87. The assessing officer erred on facts and in law in charging/ computing interest under sections 234B and 234D of the Act. Re: Ground of Appeal No.7:Penalty u/s 271AAC and 270A 88. The assessing officer grossly erred

AMADEUS IT GROUP SA,SPAIN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) INT.TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

disallowing the aforesaid expenses by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 13.4 That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that part of the allocated expenses has already been included in the expenses incurred in India resulting in duplication of deduction. 13.5 That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts

SULTAN SINGH,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARNAL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanshri Sultan Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Haryana Rice Trader, Ward-1, 780, Gali No. 2, Behind Sector- Karnal 6, Durga Colony, Haryana- 132001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Buups6518L Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. This in our considered opinion, would meet the ends of justice. With these directions, we restore the Ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the Assessee to the file of Learned AO and the said grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. The Ground No. 5 raised by the Assessee is with

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

Section 92CA(3)", "40(a)(i)", "Article 5", "Article 7", "Article 24", "195", "234B", "234D" ], "issues": "The appeal concerns various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, including challenges to the assessment order and DRP directions, disallowances

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of Rs. 19452, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in relying on the Explanation 2 to section 36(l)(va) of the Act inserted vide Finance Act 2021, without appreciating that the amendment made by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective in nature and does not apply to the year under consideration

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of Rs. 19452, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in relying on the Explanation 2 to section 36(l)(va) of the Act inserted vide Finance Act 2021, without appreciating that the amendment made by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective in nature and does not apply to the year under consideration

DELITE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections": [ "14A", "143(3)", "250", "8D", "234A", "234B", "234C", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance under Section 14A is justified when