(Now known as Sony India Limited)

251 12 VAT paid on purchases 2,960,787 13 Sample courier charges 11,064,039 14 Gym charges 355,988 15 Sample expenses for manufacture, suppliers and trade shows. 23,396,979 16 Export forwarding and clearing expenses 3,569,537 17 Misc. Expenses 3,960,471 18 Sales incentive expenses 2,869,355 19 Warehouse running and maintenance

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

section (a) in an appeal against an order of 251(1)(a) (which is assessment, he may confirm, reduce, relevant in respect of enhance or annul the assessment; appeals against an ………………… assessment order). (b) in an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, he may confirm or Therefore, the CIT(A) does cancel such order or vary

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, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

251 ITR 99affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court. The Kerala High Court observed as follows: "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is attracted where, in the course of any proceedings under the Act, the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority is satisfied that: (a) any person has concealed the particulars of his income

TRIVENI TURBINE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant holding that donations forming part of CSR expenditure is not allowable as deduction under section 80G of the Act. 4. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid issue is no longer re-integra and it has been held by various Benches of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the following cases

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

251)\n4.\nHon'ble Apex Court in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal approving\nabove Hon'ble Delhi High Court order reported at 466 ITR 254\n5.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs. MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd.\nITA 593/2023 (30.07.2024) approving ITAT impugned order on sec.\n153D.\n6.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in case

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)’].

1)(c) of the Act on the above mentioned disallowances of depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/- and interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/-. The Ld. CIT-DR, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway, submitted that the depreciation was rightly disallowed and that was why the assessee

SHANKAR DAYAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-30(7), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.1 That even on merits, the claim of sales consideration being supported from valuation report obtained by the appellant, the impugned addition made without appreciating the actual consideration received for sale of property is arbitrary and misconceived. 3.2 That the transaction of sale of property being made at fair market value

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

251 ITR 53 held that payments made to the assessee for cloud computing services do not qualify as royalty under the India-USA DTAA. The relevant findings and observations of the Tribunal are reproduced below: “11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is in respect of charges paid

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

251 ITR 53 held that payments made to the assessee for cloud computing services do not qualify as royalty under the India-USA DTAA. The relevant findings and observations of the Tribunal are reproduced below: “11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is in respect of charges paid

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

1,83,82,496 and has retained the 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

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

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act by the assessing officer is not proper. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 31. With regard to ground No.7 the relevant facts are, during the assessment proceeding, Assessing Officer vide notice dated 17.03.2021 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act observed that the net loss on account

EFFORT FOUDATION (N.G.O),DELHI vs. ITO , DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1204/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Effort Foundation (N.G.O.), Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 233, Pocket-10, Nasirpura, Exemption Ward-1(1), Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae4486D Assessee By: An Adjournment Application Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order

disallowed the assessee’s section 11 exemption claim on account of the fact that it had filed it’s return on 14.03.2019 i.e. very well beyond the due date thereof coming to 30.09.2018. It is noticed in this factual backdrop that the tribunal’s recent order in Indian Medical Association Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 767/PUN/2025 dated 16.06.2025 that even

QAI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made by AO is wholly untenable in the eyes of law as these payments are not liable for deduction of tax at source: a. Intertec Systems LLC : Rs.53,73,994/-. b. Invico Capital Corporation AG : Rs.86,88,215/- QAI India Ltd. (ii) That the aforesaid act of the CIT(A) is in violation of the provision of Section 251

QAI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made by AO is wholly untenable in the eyes of law as these payments are not liable for deduction of tax at source: a. Intertec Systems LLC : Rs.53,73,994/-. b. Invico Capital Corporation AG : Rs.86,88,215/- QAI India Ltd. (ii) That the aforesaid act of the CIT(A) is in violation of the provision of Section 251

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