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

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowable under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that the said amount was in the nature of royalty/fee for technical service on which the appellant failed to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. 45.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that the export commission paid

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, however same was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer observed that the different units of the assessee company are not operating in isolation but they are operating as different branch of the same tree. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was maintaining single books of accounts for all its units, including

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, however same was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer observed that the different units of the assessee company are not operating in isolation but they are operating as different branch of the same tree. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was maintaining single books of accounts for all its units, including

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, however same was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer observed that the different units of the assessee company are not operating in isolation but they are operating as different branch of the same tree. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was maintaining single books of accounts for all its units, including

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, however same was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer observed that the different units of the assessee company are not operating in isolation but they are operating as different branch of the same tree. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was maintaining single books of accounts for all its units, including

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

disallowance.” 30. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra), we allow ground nos.8 to 8.2. 31. With regard to Ground Nos.9 to 9.4 regarding income from trading in mutual funds/shares treated as business income and not as long term/short term capital gain, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “The appellant, as a consistent practice, has been

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

disallowance.” 30. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra), we allow ground nos.8 to 8.2. 31. With regard to Ground Nos.9 to 9.4 regarding income from trading in mutual funds/shares treated as business income and not as long term/short term capital gain, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “The appellant, as a consistent practice, has been

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That finding of conclusion of CIT(A) in respect of value of work in progress is illegal and arbitrary as valuation of work in progress is based on regular system of accounting and based on legal and accounting principles. 5(i) That CIT(A) having accepted claim of assessee that there

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

disallowance.”\n30. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra), we allow ground\nnos.8 to 8.2.\n\n23\n31. With regard to Ground Nos.9 to 9.4 regarding income from trading in mutual\nfunds/shares treated as business income and not as long term/short term capital gain,\nld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :-\n“The appellant, as a consistent

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance made in that year was deleted on the ground that since in the first place, the Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT parties were not related to the assessee company in terms of section 40A (2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant on account of refund of excess DDT paid during the year without appreciating the law in proper perspective. 2.4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law by not allowing refund of excess tax paid under section

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant on account of refund of excess DDT paid during the year without appreciating the law in proper perspective. 2.4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law by not allowing refund of excess tax paid under section

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant on account of refund of excess DDT paid during the year without appreciating the law in proper perspective. 2.4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law by not allowing refund of excess tax paid under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RIVIERA HOME FURNISHING (P) LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Vs. Acit, Range-15, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Dcit, Circle-15(1), Room No. Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, 412, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Department By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2016 Order

section 10B is, therefore, not accepted. This ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 5.7 Respectfully, following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, we uphold the finding of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly, dismissed. 6. In ground No. 4 of the assessee

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in affirming the action of the assessing officer in making disallowance of Rs.8,11,239

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in affirming the action of the assessing officer in making disallowance of Rs.8,11,239

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance under section 40a(i), the payment should be of a sum chargeable under this Act on which tax id deductible at DCIT V Xansa India Limited ITA No. 2283/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2004-05), ITA No. 3671/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2005-06), ITA No. 3673/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2006-07), ITA No. 628/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Xansa India Limited