DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

2% of the exempt income. 15. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the AY under consideration is AY 2005-06. The relevant section 14A(1) was inserted by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f 1.4.1962. Further Rule 8D was introduced with effect from AY 2008-09. In our view, section in existence in the year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

2% of the exempt income. 15. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the AY under consideration is AY 2005-06. The relevant section 14A(1) was inserted by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f 1.4.1962. Further Rule 8D was introduced with effect from AY 2008-09. In our view, section in existence in the year

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount(Rs.) i) Amount of expenditure directly relating to 578,392 income which does not form part of income ii) Interest cost not directly attributable to 22,253

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount(Rs.) i) Amount of expenditure directly relating to 578,392 income which does not form part of income ii) Interest cost not directly attributable to 22,253

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount(Rs.) i) Amount of expenditure directly relating to 578,392 income which does not form part of income ii) Interest cost not directly attributable to 22,253

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount(Rs.) i) Amount of expenditure directly relating to 578,392 income which does not form part of income ii) Interest cost not directly attributable to 22,253

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

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in deleting disallowance of Rs. 25,48,000/- made on account of proportionate Interest on interest free advances given to sister concerns. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in reversing action of Assessing Officer who assessed interest income

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in deleting disallowance of Rs. 25,48,000/- made on account of proportionate Interest on interest free advances given to sister concerns. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in reversing action of Assessing Officer who assessed interest income

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in deleting disallowance of Rs. 25,48,000/- made on account of proportionate Interest on interest free advances given to sister concerns. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in reversing action of Assessing Officer who assessed interest income

UMA DUTT PALIWAL PROP.,PANIPAT vs. ADDL. CIT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Uma Dutt Paliwal, Vs Addl. Cit, Prop. Paliwal Home Furnishing, Karnal. Panipat. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

2 relates to the disallowance of Rs.21,132/- on account of 1/5th of the telephone expenses by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that all the telephones were used for business purposes only. However, the assessee could not submit any evidence either before the Assessing Officer

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

2) only consideration received against the transfer of goodwill, tenancy right et cetera are chargeable to tax whose cst of acquisition is Nil. However, trademarks, know-how etc have not been included in that section, therefore if they do not have any cost of acquisition, the provisions of charging capital gain on sale of thee assets fails. Thus, according

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 03, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

253 ITR 749 and deleted the addition/disallowance. The learned departmental representative could not show us any reason to state that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on such travel expenditure of aircraft and helicopter can be considered as a personal expenditure of a company. There were no contrary decision is pointed out before us. In view of this

SANJAY SAWHNEY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

253(2) of the Act, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he objects to an order passed by the CIT (A) under Section 250 of the Act, direct the AO to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. It is not disputed that no such directions to file an appeal against the CIT (A)'s order dated 21st January

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

M/S. SINDHU TRADE LINKS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14A of the Act, it is a legal mandate for the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before making any disallowance u/s 14A. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company vs. DCIT 2017 (394) ITR 449 (SC) b. Pr. CIT vs. M/s Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd. – ITA 268/2018 (Del. HC) There is no proximate

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINDHU TRADE LINKS LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14A of the Act, it is a legal mandate for the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before making any disallowance u/s 14A. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company vs. DCIT 2017 (394) ITR 449 (SC) b. Pr. CIT vs. M/s Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd. – ITA 268/2018 (Del. HC) There is no proximate

M/S. SINDHU TRADE LINKS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14A of the Act, it is a legal mandate for the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before making any disallowance u/s 14A. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company vs. DCIT 2017 (394) ITR 449 (SC) b. Pr. CIT vs. M/s Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd. – ITA 268/2018 (Del. HC) There is no proximate