ASIA SUGAR INDS.P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhary

disallowance of expenses, be deleted. 5. With respect to ground No.2, the Learned A.R. submitted that during the course of search cash of Rs.58 lakhs was found and out of which Rs.44,50,000/- was seized. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to give explanation about the cash found to which assessee inter alia, submitted that cash

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

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

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

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

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, since on his part the assessee had made payment within the due date prescribed under the respective Act and it was only on account of a technical glitches, there was a one day delay in credit of such amount to the respective account of the PF/ESIC authorities. 9. In the case

JAYPEE INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1) , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

sections 250 and 251 of the Act; we, therefore, set aside the impugned order and decide the issues in dispute in foregoing paras. 7. The next issue is in respect of the disallowance

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

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

section 251(2) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to New Mangalore Port Road Company Ltd. dismiss the appeal summarily. Facts of this case is quite different. Therefore, in view of the facts in entirety and in the interest of justice, we find it fit that this case requires to be remanded back

INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

251(2) of the Act. 1.3. That the CIT(A) erred in not quashing the assessment order dated 22.09.2022 passed without providing opportunity of personal hearing, in violation of mandatory scheme of section 144B of the Act and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Re: Disallowance

JET TECH SYSTEMS,NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1)(3), NOIDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of the claim of exemption under section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine after affording 10 opportunities of being heard which were not availed by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) had no option except to decide

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 8,00,95,000 is not justified on the counters of s. 35(1) merely owing to lesser quantification of eligible expenditure by DSIR. 58. We now advert to the second limb of the argument for eligibility of weighted deduction thereon amounting to Rs.4,00,47,500/- under the shelter of Section

TNY HOLIDAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(1), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowances of Rs. 9,52,514. The Ld. AO has stated in remand report that complete details/documents of following persons / entities were not submitted hence addition of Rs. 9,52,514/- should be retained. 4 The total number of parties is around 200 approx. and data was voluminous because of which ledger account of major big parties were only submitted

PROMOTIONAL CLUB,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-28(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.748 /Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Promotional Club Income Tax Officer, D-815, New Friends Colony, Ward-28(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110025 Vs. Minto Road, New Delhi Pan: Aajfp4348R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

disallowed and taxed 20% of sundry creditors, unexplained unsecured loan of Rs.5,90,00,000/-, 15% of other expenses, depreciation on assets purchased in the relevant year and difference in opening WDV. All of the disallowances/additions of Rs.8,93,98,439/- were made due non- compliance of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. GOEL EXIM INDIA PVT. LTD. , DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. M/S. Goel Exim India Pvt. Ltd. 2606/4, 1St Floor, Solitaire Plaza, Central Circle-28, New Delhi Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 Pan : Aaccg1799B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Goel Exim India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd.2606/4, Central Circle-28, 1St Floor, Solitaire Plaza, New Delhi Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 Pan : Aaccg1799B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 251(l)(a) of the Act and enhancing the income of the appellant for a completely new source of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance

GOEL EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. M/S. Goel Exim India Pvt. Ltd. 2606/4, 1St Floor, Solitaire Plaza, Central Circle-28, New Delhi Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 Pan : Aaccg1799B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Goel Exim India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd.2606/4, Central Circle-28, 1St Floor, Solitaire Plaza, New Delhi Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 Pan : Aaccg1799B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 251(l)(a) of the Act and enhancing the income of the appellant for a completely new source of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance

GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Presidenet & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ge India Industrial Private Vs. Acit, (Osd), Ltd., A-18, First Floor, Okhla New Delhi Ind. Area, Phase-2, Okhla Ind. Estates S.O. Tehkhand, South East Delhi, New Delhi Pan :Aaacg4901D (Applicant) (Respondent)

disallowances. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In ground no.4, assessee has challenged the direction of the first appellate authority to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the assessee has offered the corresponding income in respect of which it has claimed credit for TDS amounting to Rs.4,31,143. 11. Before us, the only submission, made by learned counsel

CEDAR INFONET PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

251/- respectively for the purposes of disallowances. The CIT(A) however accepted the plea of the assessee towards incorrect disallowance on account of capitalization of interest amounting to Rs.37,26,73,788/-. At this stage, the ld. counsel pointed out that while appreciating the issue, the CIT(A) has denied the reduction on account of interest earned on loans advances

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, from INR 4,69,59,072/-. 5. Aggrieved against this, both the assessee and the Revenue have assailed the finding of Ld.CIT(A) in appeal and cross-objection respectively before this Tribunal. 6. Ground No.1 & 9 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature, need no separate adjudication. 7. Ground No.2