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

4 raised by the revenue in other years also allowed. 16. With regard to Ground No.6 of AY 2005-06 and Ground No.5 of AYs 2006- 07 & 2007-08 regarding allowing the claim of Rs.1,10,487/- out of reimbursement of fuel expenses and telephone expenses, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted as under :- AO's Reasoning : The AO disallowed

SANJAY SAWHNEY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Section 253 (4), or that it would render the provision relating to cross objections redundant and otiose. In Sundaram &Co. (supra),the High Court observed that the reason for such a rule [Rule 27] was that when a decision is favorable to a person and comes to be challenged by his adversary, the person must be in a position

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

4,925,241 10.3 The Assessing Officer however computed the disallowance of ₹ 11,95,19,889/-in terms of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the ‘Rules’ as under: 25 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 Particulars 31.03.2009 31.03.2008 A.1 Investment in shares and 881,716,571 2,088,379,878.00 mutual fund (shown

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

4,925,241 10.3 The Assessing Officer however computed the disallowance of ₹ 11,95,19,889/-in terms of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the ‘Rules’ as under: 25 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 Particulars 31.03.2009 31.03.2008 A.1 Investment in shares and 881,716,571 2,088,379,878.00 mutual fund (shown

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

4,925,241 10.3 The Assessing Officer however computed the disallowance of ₹ 11,95,19,889/-in terms of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the ‘Rules’ as under: 25 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 Particulars 31.03.2009 31.03.2008 A.1 Investment in shares and 881,716,571 2,088,379,878.00 mutual fund (shown

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

4,925,241 10.3 The Assessing Officer however computed the disallowance of ₹ 11,95,19,889/-in terms of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the ‘Rules’ as under: 25 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 Particulars 31.03.2009 31.03.2008 A.1 Investment in shares and 881,716,571 2,088,379,878.00 mutual fund (shown

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, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RENU NANDA, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal number WTA 27/del/2014 for assessment year 2010 – 11 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 9. The Ld. departmental representative also could not point out any incriminating material

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)

253(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rule 22 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, makes it abundantly clear that any party aggrieved against the order of the appellate authority can file a memorandum of cross objections against any part of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The cross-objections need not be confined

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishia N D Shri K. Narasimha Chary

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the appellant’s claim, amounting to Rs.16,15,567/-, for consequential depreciation on leasehold improvements capitalized in earlier years and referring back the matter to the Assessing officer for verification. 5. That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise.” 28 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 28. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.51,43,856/- made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise.” 28 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 28. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.51,43,856/- made

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise.” 28 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 28. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.51,43,856/- made

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise.” 28 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 28. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.51,43,856/- made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise.” 28 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 28. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.51,43,856/- made

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise.” 28 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 28. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.51,43,856/- made

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise.” 28 ITA No.1712/Del./2010 ITA No.4144/Del./2014 ITA No.2208/Del./2014 ITA No.3708/Del./2012 ITA No.5511/Del./2012 ITA No.323/Del./2012 ITA No.5855/Del./2011 ITA No.2241/Del./2014 28. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.51,43,856/- made

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

253 ITR 608. The Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court upheld constitutional validity of section 115-O of the Act. On appeal, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court upheld the decision of Single Bench holding the constitutional validity of section 115-O of the Act. It was further held that the tax payable ought