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

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

244, being, 16 number of employees for working out the Cost per employee at Rs.89.00 lakh. Thereafter, 15% of the Cost of one employee has been attributed to disallowance under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 80IA of the Act is a deduction admissible for a certain term, the question whether or not the statutory conditions precedent to the admissibility thereof (including the question separate books of accounts are maintained and the basis of computing sales) are fulfilled in the case of an appellant, is required to be examined by the Revenue in the first

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be sustain without any satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer before applying Rule 8D of the Rules, reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Pr.CIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 244

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

Section 132 of the act on 21/1/2011. A special audit u/s 142 (2A) was also conducted for assessment year 2004 – 05 to 2011 – 12. The assessment for the assessment year 2004 – 05 to 2011 – 12 was passed considering the findings of search of action and report of special audit. Various disallowances under provisions of the income tax act and adjustment

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). According to the Ld. counsel, said claim of weighted deduction under section 35(1) of the Act was made under the bonafide belief that the institution to which grants were made i.e. M/s The Petroleum Conservation Research Association, New Delhi, was entitled as approved scientific research Association under section

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). According to the Ld. counsel, said claim of weighted deduction under section 35(1) of the Act was made under the bonafide belief that the institution to which grants were made i.e. M/s The Petroleum Conservation Research Association, New Delhi, was entitled as approved scientific research Association under section

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). According to the Ld. counsel, said claim of weighted deduction under section 35(1) of the Act was made under the bonafide belief that the institution to which grants were made i.e. M/s The Petroleum Conservation Research Association, New Delhi, was entitled as approved scientific research Association under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. 5. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.2,13,75,229/- on account of concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He rejected the contention of the respondent that the claims/entries were bona fide and lapse had occurred because the respondent was without competent professional staff due to closure of running operations

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

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Disallowance of interest decapitalisation [ Ground no 3 of appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] 30. In appeals of the assessee, Ground number 1 for assessment year 2007 – 08 and ground number 1 and 2 for assessment year 2008 – 09 are challenging the various additions/adjustment made by the learned assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer which are also independently challenged

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Disallowance of interest decapitalisation [ Ground no 3 of appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] 30. In appeals of the assessee, Ground number 1 for assessment year 2007 – 08 and ground number 1 and 2 for assessment year 2008 – 09 are challenging the various additions/adjustment made by the learned assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer which are also independently challenged

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPUS PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 40 A (2) (a) disallowed 50% of such expenditure. The learned CIT – A deleted above disallowance holding that AO has not been able to show that expenditure incurred was excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value of services for which payment was made. Undoubtedly, genuineness of expenditure is not doubted otherwise Learned-assessing officer should have disallowed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPUS PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 40 A (2) (a) disallowed 50% of such expenditure. The learned CIT – A deleted above disallowance holding that AO has not been able to show that expenditure incurred was excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value of services for which payment was made. Undoubtedly, genuineness of expenditure is not doubted otherwise Learned-assessing officer should have disallowed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OPUS PROJECTS LTD.,, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 40 A (2) (a) disallowed 50% of such expenditure. The learned CIT – A deleted above disallowance holding that AO has not been able to show that expenditure incurred was excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value of services for which payment was made. Undoubtedly, genuineness of expenditure is not doubted otherwise Learned-assessing officer should have disallowed

The Motor & General Finance Ltd. etc. etc. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, New Delhi

disallowances made by the AO were ultimately deleted and wiped out by the Tribunal, the amount of tax paid by the assessee on the basis of assessment order was wrongly demanded. The payments, thus, made were retained by the Income Tax department without justification. Therefore, the interest which accrued thereupon was also retained and, in these circumstances, on the principle

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Disallowance w.r.t. deduction claimed under Section 6,38,13,601 80G of the Act on account of donations given 14. Aggrieved by the adjustments made to the returned income, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 15. As regards impugned adjustments to the deductions eligible under s.80IC & s.80IE of Act in terms of section 80IA(10) r.w.s 92CA

M/S. HOTZ INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

section 14A read with Rule8D and as such, disallowance sustained in disregard of the claim of the appellant is contrary to law and, hence untenable. In fact, even the learned Assessing Officer has overlooked such 2 computation of disallowance, while making the disallowance of Rs.1,22,48,177 in the order of assessment. 1.2 That the Learned CIT(Appeals) further