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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

256 (Guj.) (HC)\n5. ITO Ward v/s First American Securities Pvt Ltd [ITA No\n4768/Del/2012] dated11/01/2016 (Delhi ITAT)\n6. CIT Vs. DD Industries (2015) 57 taxmann.com 310\n9. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the assessment order, it\nappears that the disallowance has been made by invoking the provision of\nsection 14A of the Act though

M/S. RELIGARE ENTERPRISE LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act [refer NTPC: 229 ITR 383 (SC), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.), SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI : 262 ITR 638 (Cal.), Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT: 66 ITR 647 (All), Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO: 30 ITD 161 (Del SB)]. It is pertinent

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

256 (Guj.) (HC)\n5. ITO Ward v/s First American Securities Pvt Ltd [ITA No\n4768/Del/2012] dated11/01/2016 (Delhi ITAT)\n6. CIT Vs. DD Industries (2015) 57 taxmann.com 310\n9. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the assessment order, it\nappears that the disallowance has been made by invoking the provision of\nsection 14A of the Act though

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

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

256 ITR 73;  Vivek Jain v ACIT 337 ITR 74 ;  Rajasthan SEB v DCIT 200 ITR 434 33. Another issue connected with the above is whether the receipts from RECs, being in the nature of capital receipts, will form part of book profit computed under section 115JB of the Act? 34. The ld. AR submitted that the RECs being

DR. KAMAL KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

section 14A cannot exceed the exempt dividend income earned by the assessee during the year. In Pr. CIT vs. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that upper disallowance as held in Pr. CIT vs. McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 725 of 2018 decided on October 22, 2018 cannot exceed the exempt

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

section 11AB wherein the excise authorities recognized prevailing commercial practice of supplementary invoices being made in addition to the original invoices. The liability on account of FPI was an ascertained liability representing additional purchase price of the goods. Since the liability accrued during the relevant assessment year, even though was finally paid in the following assessment years, the same

DR. ASHOK SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2011-12 Dr. Ashok Seth, Acit, Circle 61(1), B-30, Geetanjali Enclave, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aarps1432R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing Rs. 5,26,256/- u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 when no proximate nexus has been established between the expenditure claimed and exempt income by the AO. (c) In ignoring the fact that the expenditure incurred and claimed by the appellant has direct nexus with the professional income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ITALIAN THAI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

disallowance and also held that the expenditure was in the course of acquiring a capital asset. The ITAT agreed with the assessee, holding that the tax borne by the assessee was a part of the entire consideration agreed to be paid. In doing so, the ITAT relied upon and followed the judgment in Tata Yadogawa

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ITALIAN THAI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

disallowance and also held that the expenditure was in the course of acquiring a capital asset. The ITAT agreed with the assessee, holding that the tax borne by the assessee was a part of the entire consideration agreed to be paid. In doing so, the ITAT relied upon and followed the judgment in Tata Yadogawa

JURASIC REFINERS & JEWELS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY JURASSIC FINANCE & CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.),DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

256/- was disallowed u/s 36(l)(iii) read with Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the AO, The AR of the appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI vs. MODI RUBBER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2011-12

Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the High Court called for a reference on the basis that the question was a question of law. We are unable to agree with the High Court. In the first place, the Tribunal has held that the addition had been made on the basis of pure guess work and this

AJAY ENTERPRISES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18

256/- of the Income-Tax Act and Rs.1,30,00,000/- u/s. 43B of the Income-Tax Act out of the amounts provided towards the unfinished work. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the appellant’s case in confirming the disallowance of Rs.10

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

disallowance of Rs.2.16.018 on account of alleged late deposit of EPF and ESI. Subsequently, after the expiry of the limitation of four years, notice dated 31.03.2021 as issued under section 148 for initiating assessment under section 147 of the Act a page 42 of the paper book). The reasons recorded before initiating re-assessment proceedings under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

disallowance of Rs.2.16.018 on account of alleged late deposit of EPF and ESI. Subsequently, after the expiry of the limitation of four years, notice dated 31.03.2021 as issued under section 148 for initiating assessment under section 147 of the Act a page 42 of the paper book). The reasons recorded before initiating re-assessment proceedings under section

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

disallowance of Rs.2.16.018 on account of alleged late deposit of EPF and ESI. Subsequently, after the expiry of the limitation of four years, notice dated 31.03.2021 as issued under section 148 for initiating assessment under section 147 of the Act a page 42 of the paper book). The reasons recorded before initiating re-assessment proceedings under section

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

disallowance of Rs.2.16.018 on account of alleged late deposit of EPF and ESI. Subsequently, after the expiry of the limitation of four years, notice dated 31.03.2021 as issued under section 148 for initiating assessment under section 147 of the Act a page 42 of the paper book). The reasons recorded before initiating re-assessment proceedings under section