BIMLA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year : 2014-15

244A(1)(a). The Income Tax officer has not passed the order in respect of interest and calculation made as per system. Though manual increase or decrease of interest is allowed to the A.O. but no such calculations were made. The CIT (A) passed the order without considering the correct facts. It has been wrongly stated that disallowance of interest

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

CIT vs. ENGINEERS INDIA LTD

In the result, the appeal is

disallowance to ₹25,000/-. It was in the course of hearing before the CIT (Appeals) that the assessee raised the question of the AO not having allowed interest under Section 244A

DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowed. In consequence, thereto, while computing the tax payable by the assessee, The Ld. assessing officer withdrew the interest already allowed under section 244A

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance is called for under that Section. Accordingly, made by the learned assessing officer u/s 14A of the income tax act of ₹ 22,521,366/– is unwarranted. Further, as the assessee is granted relief on the first argument that Section 14 A is not applicable in case of bank when the investments are held as stock in trade, other arguments

CIT vs. BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

disallowances and additional claims were made and ultimately after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal‟s (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) order, the total income under the normal provisions was worked out by the AO in terms of order dated 20.11.2007 under Section 254 of the Act at `147,14,95,301/-. However, subsequently while determining the income

ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEWW DELHI vs. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

Disallowance of Corporate Social Responsibility expenses 5. The Id.CIT (A) erred in upholding thedisallowanceof Corporate Social Responsibility expenses of Rs. 1,65,84,000 out of total expenses of Rs. 2,20,84,000; and without prejudice and alternatively, the Id. CIT (A) having held major expenditure to be capital expenditure, ought to have allowed depreciation thereon. Interest u/s 244A

NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 18(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

Disallowance of Corporate Social Responsibility expenses 5. The Id.CIT (A) erred in upholding thedisallowanceof Corporate Social Responsibility expenses of Rs. 1,65,84,000 out of total expenses of Rs. 2,20,84,000; and without prejudice and alternatively, the Id. CIT (A) having held major expenditure to be capital expenditure, ought to have allowed depreciation thereon. Interest u/s 244A

MOTOROLA MOBILITY CHENNAI PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Sh. Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12 Motorola Mobility Chennai Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. 12Th Floor, Block D, Dlf Circle-2 Cyber Greens, Dlf Cyber City Gurgaon Gurgaon -122001 Pan No. Aafcp2216D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the above expenditure under section 37 (1) of The Income Tax Act, ground number seven of the appeal of the assessee is premature, hence dismissed. 18. The ground number eight is with respect to the initiation of penalty under section 271 (1) ( C ) of the income tax act. We find that above issue is premature at this particular stage

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3), Range-1, New C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Dy. Cit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(2), New Delhi C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar Department By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

disallowance of fee for "buying agency services". 9.2 Without prejudice to the above, the Panel erred in law by reading into the meaning of "Fees for technical services" contained in section 9(l)(vii) of the Act for the purpose of interpreting the definition of "Fees for technical services" provided under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3), Range-1, New C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Dy. Cit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(2), New Delhi C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar Department By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

disallowance of fee for "buying agency services". 9.2 Without prejudice to the above, the Panel erred in law by reading into the meaning of "Fees for technical services" contained in section 9(l)(vii) of the Act for the purpose of interpreting the definition of "Fees for technical services" provided under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

disallowance as per section 14A r.w Rule 8D. 11. That on facts and in law the AO/DRP erred in subjecting to tax interest on Income Tax refund of Rs 16,20,444 pertaining to AY 2007-08 (u/s 244A