THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. The DRP directed the assessing officer to consider the judicial precedents referred by the appellant and pass a speaking order. 80. The assessing officer, however, in violation of the directions of the DRP, without considering the legal position, repeated the disallowance. 81. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section. Thus, it was in favour of the assessee, thus cannot be said to be debatable issue at the time of processing of return, so no addition can be made u/s 143(1)(a). 6. That the Authorities below erred both in law and facts by disallowing the employee’s contribution EPF/ESI. Hence same is allowable deduction u/s 37(1

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section. Thus, it was in favour of the assessee, thus cannot be said to be debatable issue at the time of processing of return, so no addition can be made u/s 143(1)(a). 6. That the Authorities below erred both in law and facts by disallowing the employee’s contribution EPF/ESI. Hence same is allowable deduction u/s 37(1

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the three assessment years

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the three assessment years

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the three assessment years

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance was made by the Learned\nAO in the assessment order for assessment year 2020-21 under\nsection 37(1) of the Act in respect of this issue. For this purpose, he\nsubmitted that the Learned PCIT need not resort to cancel the\nregistration of the Assessee retrospectively. Further, he submitted\nthat the screenshots of WhatsApp chats merely depict

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) were not applicable. As regards the 3rd addition for violation of the provision of Section 269SS, Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee had not accepted the loan in cash and rather the director had directly paid to Hundai Motors and assessee had just passed a journal entry by crediting the amount to the account of Directors and therefore there

ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSETS LTD., GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowances was upheld.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "36(1)(iii)", "37(1)", "143(3)", "250", "14A" ], "issues": "Whether interest on borrowed

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

1- Import of finished goods for resale RPM GP/ Sales — 169,75,21,034 2. Export of Software (Credited to P/L A/c) TNMM OP/OC OP/Sales 13,28,40,833 -- 3. Provision of software Service (Credited to Service Income in P/L) TNMM OP/OC 5,78,81,229 4 Reimbursement of professional charges Not bench- marking 16,27,161 5 Cost allocation

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

disallowance of the cost of improvement was not decided by the CIT(A) in a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(3)", "Section 144", "Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 250", "Section 271(1

ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSET LTD., GURGAON

In the result, both captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowances, finding that interest was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "36(1)(iii)", "37(1)", "143(3)", "250

LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

250 of\nthe Act (1961 Act) erred in not quashing the impugned assessment\norder passed u/s 153A/144 of the Act which is without\n“valid”/requisite approval u/s 153D of the Act.”\nIt is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that\nthe common approval u/s 153D granted by the Addl. CIT, Meerut\ndated 28.12.2019 in the case

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following payments made to both the persons. Mrs. Malvika Rai Rs.225,500/- Mrs. Aarti

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following payments made to both the persons. Mrs. Malvika Rai Rs.225,500/- Mrs. Aarti

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following payments made to both the persons. Mrs. Malvika Rai Rs.225,500/- Mrs. Aarti

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following payments made to both the persons. Mrs. Malvika Rai Rs.225,500/- Mrs. Aarti