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

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

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

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

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

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

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

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

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 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

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)

section 14A is unsustainable as the securities are held as stock-in-trade. Rule – 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) does not apply to stock-in-trade: 8. It is submitted that the disallowance made by the AO under Rule - 8D(2)(ii) of Rs. 1,97,40,048 on account of interest expenditure and Rs. 27,81,318 under Rule

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

246/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,49,82,627/- made on account of profit from Bikaner Project. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

246/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,49,82,627/- made on account of profit from Bikaner Project. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

246 against an order u/s 163 was that a person who is treated as an agent could challenge the matter so as to avoid further botheration to himself in facing the assessment. Tribunal has also relied upon the judgement of Madras High Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. wherein no order had been passed by the Assessing

M/S. INTERARCH BUILDING PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2006-07 Interarch Building Vs. Dcit Products Pvt. Ltd., Circle -11 (1) Farm No.8 Khasra New Delhi No.56/23/2, Dera Mandi Village, Mehrauli New Delhi-110047 Pan No.Aaaci0106J (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of excess claim of deduction in Pantnagar Unit of Rs.35,83,080/-is confirmed.” 18. Before us, while arguing the additional ground, the assessee has requested that deduction on the profits of the respective unit should have been allowed without allocating indirect head office expenses. 19. The learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that the method of allocation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

disallowance of expense on CSR? (10) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble IT AT was correct in law in considering an agreement in severable when it clearly states that royalty is for two things one for licensed information and one for licensed trademarks both clearly defined in the definition part of the agreement

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

disallowance of expense on CSR? (10) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble IT AT was correct in law in considering an agreement in severable when it clearly states that royalty is for two things one for licensed information and one for licensed trademarks both clearly defined in the definition part of the agreement

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

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) is to be deleted. 14.96. It would be pertinent to point that section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

disallowed as being capital in nature. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, no portion of the royalty expenditure or Technical Guidance fees incurred by the assessee calls for being disallowed. 49. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and Order of the TPO but could not distinguish the order of the Tribunal for A.Ys

DION GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Dion Global Solution Ltd., Vs Dcit, 409, Chaudhry Complex, Circle-7(2), New Delhi. 9 Vs Block, Madhuban Road, Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 Pan-Aaacf1917E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Akhilesh Gupta, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2022

disallowance of Rs. 2,44,49,246) made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 1.1. That

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bg Exploration & Production India Jcit (International Taxation), Ltd., Dehradun. Lake Boulevard Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai.

disallowing interest of Rs.14,99,98,785 claimed by the Appellant. Ground No. 16: Non-grant of additional depreciation 16.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in not granting additional depreciation of Rs.4,32,25,478 under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the new plant and machinery of Rs. 21,05,13,315 purchased