PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowances aggregating to Rs. 2,85,77,271/-. 03.04.2017 The Id. C1T(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee company as non- maintainable u/s 249(4)(a) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not paid the tax due on the income returned till date, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 21.08.2017 The AO passed an order

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowances aggregating to Rs. 2,85,77,271/-. 03.04.2017 The Id. C1T(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee company as non- maintainable u/s 249(4)(a) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not paid the tax due on the income returned till date, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 21.08.2017 The AO passed an order

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 40A(2) for determining reasonableness of price paid by the assessee. 6.7 The decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Herbalife International India (P) Ltd. (supra) applies with full force to the case at hand before us. The crux of the matter is that once the transaction is undisputedly subject matter of chapter X ‘Special Provisions relating to Avoidance

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 40A(2) for determining reasonableness of price paid by the assessee. 6.7 The decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Herbalife International India (P) Ltd. (supra) applies with full force to the case at hand before us. The crux of the matter is that once the transaction is undisputedly subject matter of chapter X ‘Special Provisions relating to Avoidance

IMPERIAL AUTO INUDSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3927/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) M/S. Imperial Auto Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax Industries Ltd., Centralized Processing Plot No.202, Kushal Cell, Bengaluru Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan: Aaaci 0645 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowance. 3. The appellant was under bonafide belief that since the assessment proceeding has already been started, all claims and contentions would be examined during the course of assessment proceeding for the impugned year and thus did not pursue the remedy against the impugned intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 23.12.2021 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Subsequently

DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI vs. PRIAPUS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 14A of the Act, the assessee submitted that it has however suo motu disallowed an estimated amount of Rs.38,70,249/- (being 1% of dividend income) towards probable cost of earning exempt income in the form of dividend from equity shares and mutual funds. It was further submitted that the assessee has not made any fresh investment during

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

249 ITR 670 (SC) is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to section 271(l)(c) was not in existence. The view of this court in Harprasad's case [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC) leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes losses." Mr. Nikhil Sawhney (Emphasis

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

249/- on the basis of 1% of average value of investment from which tax free dividend income was received. The assessee thus contends that in view of suo motu disallowance which far exceeds the exempt income, no further disallowance is permissible under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. 11.2 In the light of the submissions

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

249/- under section 154 of the Act vide order dated 30.08.2010. Later on, the case was reopened and the consequential reassessment was done at income of Rs.1,06,28,584/- under section 147/143 of the Act on 02.09.2011. After reassessment, an application under section 154 of the Act filed by the appellant/assessee was disposed of, vide order dated

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Disallowance on account of Rs. Rs. brand building expense 3,61,50,000/- 62,05,18,022 Total Assessed Income 255,67,96,909 Total Assessed Income 255,67,96,910 Rounded off u/s 288A of I.T. Act ” 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 27/01/2022, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. Goodyear India

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Disallowance on account of Rs. Rs. brand building expense 3,61,50,000/- 62,05,18,022 Total Assessed Income 255,67,96,909 Total Assessed Income 255,67,96,910 Rounded off u/s 288A of I.T. Act ” 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 27/01/2022, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. Goodyear India

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

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

3. Though, it is clear from the plain language of the aforesaid provision that no deduction is to be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, the effect whereof is that if certain income is earned which is not to be included

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

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

3. Though, it is clear from the plain language of the aforesaid provision that no deduction is to be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, the effect whereof is that if certain income is earned which is not to be included

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

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

3. Though, it is clear from the plain language of the aforesaid provision that no deduction is to be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, the effect whereof is that if certain income is earned which is not to be included

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

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

3. Though, it is clear from the plain language of the aforesaid provision that no deduction is to be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, the effect whereof is that if certain income is earned which is not to be included

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

CAE SIMULATION TRAINING P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the direction contained in para 9 above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

Disallowance under section 40(a)(1) for alleged non-deduction of tax at source 249 2525 132 0484 law.com 3

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

249/- on the basis of 1% of average value of investment from which tax free dividend income was received. The assessee thus contends that in view of suo motu disallowance which far exceeds the exempt income, no further disallowance is permissible under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T.A. No.2110/Del/2022 5 Income Tax Rules, 1963. 11.2 In the light