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

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

ACIT CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HCL INFOTECH LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

244A of the Act, ignoring the facts that the refund was delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee as no claim of TDS was made in the revised return of income. Page 1 of 4 ITA No.-7267/Del/2019 HCL Infotech Ltd. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowance of FTC and not giving any refund as claimed by the assessee by the Assessing Officer for AY 2003-04 in light of the statutory provisions, the DTAA, and judicial precedents. 7. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the written submissions dated 03.04.2025 which are reproduced hereinunder for ready reference: SUMMARY

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD,GURUGRAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowance of FTC and not giving any refund as claimed by the assessee by the Assessing Officer for AY 2003-04 in light of the statutory provisions, the DTAA, and judicial precedents. 7. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the written submissions dated 03.04.2025 which are reproduced hereinunder for ready reference: SUMMARY

ACIT-CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON vs. TERADATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowance of deduction under Section 80G of the Act by way of CSR contribution was limited to clauses (iiihk) and (iiihl) of section 80G(2) of the Act (i.e. Clean Ganga Fund and Swacch Bharath Kosh) and not to be extended to other donations to various trusts and institutions which are otherwise eligible under section

TERADATA INDIA PVT LTD,GRUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowance of deduction under Section 80G of the Act by way of CSR contribution was limited to clauses (iiihk) and (iiihl) of section 80G(2) of the Act (i.e. Clean Ganga Fund and Swacch Bharath Kosh) and not to be extended to other donations to various trusts and institutions which are otherwise eligible under section

TERADATA INDIA P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowance of deduction under Section 80G of the Act by way of CSR contribution was limited to clauses (iiihk) and (iiihl) of section 80G(2) of the Act (i.e. Clean Ganga Fund and Swacch Bharath Kosh) and not to be extended to other donations to various trusts and institutions which are otherwise eligible under section

ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTIC P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Associated Techno Plastic P.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Elegence Level-2, Mathura Road, Circle-2(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025. New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca2525K Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2024

disallowance of Rs.92415/-on account of section 40(a) of Income Tax Act 1961. 7. That the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,09,630/- U/s 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereas as per assessee has not incurred any expenditure for earning the income which do not form part of total income

YOGESH KOTIYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 2(1)2, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

disallowing the exemption claimed under Article 15(1) of the India -Australia DTAA read with Section 90 of the Act on the following erroneous conclusions/ premises: a. The Assessee exercised his employment in India. b. Employment was based in India throughout the Australia assignment period. c. Control and management of the employment was in India d. Source of salary income

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 10. Furthermore, it is also stated that any assessment is done on the basis of ITR filed along with material facts provided by assessee and information gathered by the AO. In this case, assessee has himself declared LTCG on impugned transaction and therefore any act contrary to declaration made

CONTINENTAL FOUNDATION JOINT VENTURE,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 Continental Foundation Joint Assistant Commissioner Of Venture, Income Tax, Circle-38(1), Continental House-28, Vs. Room No.2202, E-2, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaaac0084D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Shivam Malik, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred & Was Not Justified In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs 2.31,80,000/- On Account Of Reimbursement Of Legal & Professional Fee Paid To Members Of The Appellant, By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40Ba) Of The Act, Conveniently Ignoring Earlier Orders U/S 195(2) To The Effect That Impugned Amounts Were Not Covered U/S 40(Ba).

section 40ba) of the Act, conveniently ignoring earlier orders u/s 195(2) to the effect that impugned amounts were not covered u/s 40(ba). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned Assessing Officer has erred and was not justified in disallowing a sum of Rs.27,50,000/- paid to Mohinder Verma, Dy Project Manager

SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 244A of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal with the direction to the AO to verify the claim of the appellant/assessee and to decide the issues accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee brought this matter before the ITAT. 4. The Ld. AR did not press ground no.1. The ground no. 2 & 3 are in respect of disallowance

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ITALIAN THAI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

disallowance and also held that the expenditure was in the course of acquiring a capital asset. The ITAT agreed with the assessee, holding that the tax borne by the assessee was a part of the entire consideration agreed to be paid. In doing so, the ITAT relied upon and followed the judgment in Tata Yadogawa

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ITALIAN THAI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

disallowance and also held that the expenditure was in the course of acquiring a capital asset. The ITAT agreed with the assessee, holding that the tax borne by the assessee was a part of the entire consideration agreed to be paid. In doing so, the ITAT relied upon and followed the judgment in Tata Yadogawa