ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI PRESS SAMACHAR PATRA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

249 ((Chd). Further a disallowance under section 40 (A) (2) (b) on adhoc basis, as percentage 10 | P a g e ITO, Ward

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent in nature. He further submitted that similar provision for increase in prices as at the end of the year was accepted and allowed in Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page

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)

disallowing a sum of INR 2,25,21,366 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules („Rules‟) on account of exempt interest income from PTCs earned by the Appellant. 3.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble DRP and Id. AO erred

CHARBUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

249 (Del.) in which it was held that “notice under section 143(2) was simultaneously issued on filing of the return of income, therefore, it is bad in law and invalid”. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Another vs. 27 ITA.No.4749/Del./2019 M/s. Charbuja Marmo (India

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is incorporated in section 10AA of the income-tax Act with effect from February 10, 2006. The hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Girnar Industries [2011] 338 ITR 277 (Ker) had held such amendment in section 10AA to be clarificatory in nature. The definition of "manufacture" under

M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORT,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is incorporated in section 10AA of the income-tax Act with effect from February 10, 2006. The hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Girnar Industries [2011] 338 ITR 277 (Ker) had held such amendment in section 10AA to be clarificatory in nature. The definition of "manufacture" under

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is incorporated in section 10AA of the income-tax Act with effect from February 10, 2006. The hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Girnar Industries [2011] 338 ITR 277 (Ker) had held such amendment in section 10AA to be clarificatory in nature. The definition of "manufacture" under

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is incorporated in section 10AA of the income-tax Act with effect from February 10, 2006. The hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Girnar Industries [2011] 338 ITR 277 (Ker) had held such amendment in section 10AA to be clarificatory in nature. The definition of "manufacture" under

ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI vs. J. KISHORE EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. xi) As per the AO, after issue of the CBDT Circular NO.7 dated 22.10.2009, by which Circular No. 23 dated 23.07.1969 and Circular No. 786 dated 07.02.2002 have been withdrawn, the income of the non resident agent has become taxable in India. It may be noted in this context that

M/S DIGITAL RADIO (DELHI) BROADCASTING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No 1316 &1317/Del/2011 and ITA

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm Andsh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd. V Acit C/O. O.P. Sapra & Associates, S Circle-10(1) C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Acit V Digital Radio (Delhi) Circle-10(1) S Broadcasting Ltd. New Delhi 401, Dakha House, 18/17, Wea Karol Bagh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Kolkata) V Acit Broadcasting Ltd. S Circle-10(1) C/O. O.P. Sapra & New Delhi Associates, C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7863G

249/- as paid over the period of 10 years as per license term. b) Rs. 78,55,000/- u/s 37 (1) of the act being the annual license fee expenditure incurred by the assessee. 07. There is no dispute about the claim of deduction of assessee of Rs 3,00,80,222/- paid under phase – II of the licensing terms

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)

disallowed the same treating the same as capital expenditure. The Ld. DRP also held that entire amount of Rs. 5 853 5098 to be capital in nature and observed that the appellant had claimed depreciation at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 81,94,914/– on the said expenditure. The Ld. DRP did not noticed that assessee had bifurcated

VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

disallowance of Rs.857.04 crores made under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. This ground is, accordingly allowed. 46. Next ground relates to claim of additional depreciation of Rs.9.79 crores. 47. Facts on record show that after the implementation of Scheme of amalgamation and arrangements passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay

M/S. TRINITY GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

2)(b) are not established by A.O., however in the absence of complete details and documentary evidence, only 30% is allowed, 70% disallowed. 13. The relevant background of addition is as under: Flagship Co. Trinity Insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd. is working as an insurance broker and procures the insurance covers from various general insurance companies for its clients mainly

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

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

M/S. POORAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

disallowance of Rs.14,19,000/-in respect of exemption u/s 54F and Rs.17,85,000/- in respect of exemption u/s 54B. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (A) upheld the order. On the issue of non-issuance of notice under 148, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. The Ld. AR submitted

POORAN SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

disallowance of Rs.14,19,000/-in respect of exemption u/s 54F and Rs.17,85,000/- in respect of exemption u/s 54B. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (A) upheld the order. On the issue of non-issuance of notice under 148, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. The Ld. AR submitted

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance u/s 80 JJAA of the Act is a legal issue and can be raised at any stage. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact in right perspective. Further, he reiterated the submissions as made in the brief synopsis. For the sake of clarity the Brief Synopsis is reproduced herein below: “BRIEF SYNOPSIS