M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

section 14A(2) of the Act. (ii). That the appellant himself has made disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of Rs.9,15,256

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

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

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 6.11. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act is incorrect since while

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance made in that year was deleted on the ground that since in the first place, the Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT parties were not related to the assessee company in terms of section 40A (2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered

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

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of ‘Provision of revision of pay’, I find that in the current Financial Year, no decision of the Central Govt. was available, which may have a bearing on revision of pay of executives of the appellant company, therefore, it cannot be held that such liability had crystallized in the current year. For the Central Govt. Ministries and Departments

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of ‘Provision of revision of pay’, I find that in the current Financial Year, no decision of the Central Govt. was available, which may have a bearing on revision of pay of executives of the appellant company, therefore, it cannot be held that such liability had crystallized in the current year. For the Central Govt. Ministries and Departments

DIRECTOR OF INCO:ME-TAX-I vs. JC BAMFORD EXCAVATORS LIMITED,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, since counsels for both the parties rely on the same, we would like to reproduce the aforesaid computation, which reads as under: Samvardhana Motherson Finance Limited Annexure to Form 3 CD Clause 17(1) Expenditure in relation to Dividend Income S. No. Particulars Detail Amount 1 Expenditure Directly

BRITE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE - 5(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.3508/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Brite Infrastructure Vs. Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1), 29, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015 Pan-Aaace0664R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca & Sh. Sumit Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Bhopal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-12, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. Ita No.3508 /Del/12019

disallowance under section 14A. 11. We first proceed to dispose ground no 1.1 raised by the assessee. From the fact noted by the AO in the assessment order, it is an undisputed fact that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. The relevant portion noted by the AO in para 2 of the assessment order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

disallowed. Re: Addition of assumed, presumed and deemed assessable profits from Bikaner and Mohali Projects. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not accepting method of accounting and accounting policies adopted by the appellant in respect of Bikaner and Mohali projects accounting for recognizing the revenue and cost thereof. 6.1 That the CIT(A) erred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

disallowed. Re: Addition of assumed, presumed and deemed assessable profits from Bikaner and Mohali Projects. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not accepting method of accounting and accounting policies adopted by the appellant in respect of Bikaner and Mohali projects accounting for recognizing the revenue and cost thereof. 6.1 That the CIT(A) erred

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

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

section 145A were not applicable as the assessment year under consideration was 1995-96. In view of the detailed discussion supra with reference to the applicability of section 145A to the year in question, there can be no escape from valuation of purchase, sale and inventories under the inclusive method. We, therefore, direct the AO to recast Profit and loss

RH INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

256 (Del). c. That the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), as held by the courts, is not penal in nature and is harsh, therefore, any amendment brought in section