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 40(a)(ia), which is intended to reduce the harshness of the provision, has to be liberally interpreted in favor of defaulters, more particularly when legislature itself, for the reason

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

256 (Delhi); Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657] (vii) There is no impediment in law in Courts relying upon speeches made by the concerned Minister while introducing legislation [See Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657]. Reasons and Analysis 13. Having heard

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

256 (Delhi); Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657] (vii) There is no impediment in law in Courts relying upon speeches made by the concerned Minister while introducing legislation [See Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657]. Reasons and Analysis 13. Having heard

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

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

256/- and in absence of any adverse finding or recording of proper satisfaction, the impugned disallowance is misconceived, arbitrary and unsustainable under law. (iii) That the impugned disallowance is illegal, arbitrary and against settled legal principles. 6 (i) That on facts and circumstance of the case, the assessing officer was not justified in making disallowance of loss

PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

256 ITR1, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT versus Kelvinator of India Ltd (supra). 4.8.1 Before we proceed to adjudicate on these two issues raised, it is relevant to reproduce the proviso under section 147 of the Act as under: “147……………………………………………………………………….. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section

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

1,034.90 was made on the basis of actual supplies made upto the end of the year as per price amendments actually issued as on 31.03.2010 lacs, detailed working whereof is enclosed in paper book and therefore, such amount cannot in any case be disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent in nature. He further submitted that similar

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

disallowance of depreciation had been upheld, yet the High Court upheld the order of CIT(A)/Tribunal for deleting the penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) by making the following observations: "There was no material or evidence to show that the transaction of sale and lease back was not genuine or was bogus nor was any material brought on record

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

256(1) of the Act, the 30 ITA No. 3865/Del./2015 Division Bench which dealt with the case, considered the scope of the expression business connection within the meaning of ss. 9(1)(i) and 163(1)(b) of the Act and held that to conform to the requirements of that expression it is necessary that the common thread

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

disallowances of ` 33,06,68,598/- under Section 80-I of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT vide its order dated 17.02.2006 allowed the assessee full deduction under Section 80-I, as claimed by the assessee. 10. Now we advert to the second re-assessment proceedings initiated on the ground that the carried

AVERY DENNISON (I) PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Avery Dennison (I) Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Circle -3(2), New Delhi P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, Delhi Pan :Aaaca6163D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Sh. S.S. Tomar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2018 Order

disallow expenses of INR 25,19,80,074 under section 37(1) on protective basis. That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forgo or withdraw any of the above grounds of objection either before or during the course of proceedings in the interest

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

disallowance under section 54 of the Act, which is a beneficial section and for that purpose only thing to be ensured is that capital gains consideration arising on sale of long-term capital asset are reinvested in residential property. She further submitted that even as per section 54 of the Act, there is no requirement that the assessee should have