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.

234D and withdrawing interest granted u/s 244A of the Act. 2.2. I.T.A. No. 5202/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Revenue) 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D upto the dividend received. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case

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.

234D and withdrawing interest granted u/s 244A of the Act. 2.2. I.T.A. No. 5202/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Revenue) 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D upto the dividend received. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case

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.

234D and withdrawing interest granted u/s 244A of the Act. 2.2. I.T.A. No. 5202/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Revenue) 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D upto the dividend received. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case

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.

234D and withdrawing interest granted u/s 244A of the Act. 2.2. I.T.A. No. 5202/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Revenue) 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D upto the dividend received. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case

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.

234D and withdrawing interest granted u/s 244A of the Act. 2.2. I.T.A. No. 5202/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Revenue) 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D upto the dividend received. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case

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.

234D and withdrawing interest granted u/s 244A of the Act. 2.2. I.T.A. No. 5202/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Revenue) 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D upto the dividend received. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case

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.

234D and withdrawing interest granted u/s 244A of the Act. 2.2. I.T.A. No. 5202/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Revenue) 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D upto the dividend received. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishia N D Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowance of Rs. 65,85,835/- being bad debts written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. 7 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest of Rs.1,08,38,534/- under section 234D

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiptc India Ltd, Vs. Acit, 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Circle-14(1), 15, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcp7947F (Appellant) (Respondent)

234D against the assessee. The charging of interest is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.” 17. Though in appeal memo the assessee has raised 11 grounds of appeal, However, all the grounds are related to the disallowance under section

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

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

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

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

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 6.11. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act is incorrect since while

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

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

disallowance. Thus this ground of assessee is allowed. 18. Ground No. 12 is with respect to levy of interest u/s 234A. 234B, 234C and 234D. 19. Before us, Ld AR submitted that the AO issued notice u/s 153A dated 07.10.2009 asking the assessee to file the return of income within 16 days of the service of the aforesaid notice

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

disallowance. Thus this ground of assessee is allowed. 18. Ground No. 12 is with respect to levy of interest u/s 234A. 234B, 234C and 234D. 19. Before us, Ld AR submitted that the AO issued notice u/s 153A dated 07.10.2009 asking the assessee to file the return of income within 16 days of the service of the aforesaid notice

THE BANK OF TOKYO MISTUBISHI UFJ LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Before Mr. Bhavnesh Saini

disallowances made by the AO and the ITAT vide its order dated 19th September, 2014 set aside the order on certain issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Thereafter in compliance to the directions given in the aforesaid order, the AO conducted the remand proceedings and passed the draft assessment order 21st December, 2015 under Section

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

234D of the Act. 19.1. That the Assessing Officer grossly erred in computing the interest u/s 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. 19.2. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in charging interest