TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowance of the commuted lease rentals. The appeal is allowed in this ground no. 7 of appeal. Since appeal is allowed in ground no. 7 of appeal, therefore, the plea of the appellant in ground no. 8 of appeal is infructuous and not necessary to be adjudicated.” 9.9 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has distinguished the expenditure

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowance of the commuted lease rentals. The appeal is allowed in this ground no. 7 of appeal. Since appeal is allowed in ground no. 7 of appeal, therefore, the plea of the appellant in ground no. 8 of appeal is infructuous and not necessary to be adjudicated.” 9.9 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has distinguished the expenditure

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of Rs. 1,69,44,245/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules and added to the income

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of Rs. 1,69,44,245/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules and added to the income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of Rs. 1,69,44,245/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules and added to the income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of Rs. 1,69,44,245/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules and added to the income

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of Rs. 1,69,44,245/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules and added to the income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of Rs. 1,69,44,245/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules and added to the income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of Rs. 1,69,44,245/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules and added to the income

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of Rs. 1,69,44,245/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules and added to 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 35(2AB), which is admittedly in place in the facts of the present case:  Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT: 111 TTJ 902 (Ahd)  CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) – SLP dismissed by the HC  CIT v. SandanVikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by the HC  Nagravision India (P) Ltd vs. Secretary, DSIR

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 35(2AB), which is admittedly in place in the facts of the present case:  Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT: 111 TTJ 902 (Ahd)  CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) – SLP dismissed by the HC  CIT v. SandanVikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by the HC  Nagravision India (P) Ltd vs. Secretary, DSIR

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

section 35(2AB),\nwhich is admittedly in place in the facts of the present case:\n• Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT: 111 TTJ 902 (Ahd)\n• CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) – SLP dismissed by\nthe HC\n• CIT v. SandanVikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by\nthe HC\n• Nagravision India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. JINDAL PIPES LTD, DELHI

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

section 37\nof the Act\n18,33,27,280 Deleted by CIT(A)\nGround 2 &\n3\nGround 3 Disallowance u/s 14A read with\nRule 8D\n1,74,10,450\nRestricted to\nExempt income =\n18,52,306\nGround 2 Disallowance of Fees for\nTechnical services from Pioneer\nInspection Services\n26,79,000\nConfirmed by\nCIT(A)\nGr. No\nof\nRevenue\nAppeal

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

section 80-IB(10) of the Act after due application of mind and no disallowance has ever been made on account of allocation of any expenses shown under the head' Administrative Expenses' in earlier years. Thus keeping in view of law of consistency the allocation made by the Ld. Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted. Reliance in this regard

UNIVERSAL ENERGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the same. The AO also disallowed a penalty of Rs.49,245/- by invoking Explanation

JINDAL PIPES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI

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

245\n7. These orders confirm that no disallowance on this\nissue was ever made.\n8. In light of the binding ITAT decision for AYs 2016-\n17 and 2018-19 (PB pg. 270–272), the consistent\nacceptance of expenses in earlier assessment years\n(PB pg. 226-245), and there is no change in facts\nrelating to the present year under

ACIT CIRCLE 25(1) , DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. , DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

section 37(1) of the Act. C) Holding that the Appellant failed to justify its claim to prove that the Appellant has incurred the expenditure. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before