COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

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

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

2)(ii). Therefore, we are inclined to allow the grounds relating to\nthis aspect.\n12. With regard to disallowance on the administrative cost, we direct the AO to consider\nthe disallowance only by considering those investments which had actually earned\ndividend income and we direct accordingly. We respectfully follow the decision of\nHon’ble Delhi HC in the case

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

2(Delhi), has considered the identical issue wherein it was emphasized that approval was granted without examining the assessment records or ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta the searched material and, Hon‟ble High Court in Paragraph 13, extracted the findings of the Tribunal as under:- “13. In another words, it was emphasized that the approval was granted

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

2(Delhi), has considered the identical issue wherein it was emphasized that approval was granted without examining the assessment records or ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta the searched material and, Hon‟ble High Court in Paragraph 13, extracted the findings of the Tribunal as under:- “13. In another words, it was emphasized that the approval was granted

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

2(Delhi), has considered the identical issue wherein it was emphasized that approval was granted without examining the assessment records or ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta the searched material and, Hon‟ble High Court in Paragraph 13, extracted the findings of the Tribunal as under:- “13. In another words, it was emphasized that the approval was granted

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

2(Delhi), has considered the identical issue wherein it was emphasized that approval was granted without examining the assessment records or ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta the searched material and, Hon‟ble High Court in Paragraph 13, extracted the findings of the Tribunal as under:- “13. In another words, it was emphasized that the approval was granted

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

2(Delhi), has considered the identical issue wherein it was emphasized that approval was granted without examining the assessment records or ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta the searched material and, Hon‟ble High Court in Paragraph 13, extracted the findings of the Tribunal as under:- “13. In another words, it was emphasized that the approval was granted

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

2(Delhi), has considered the identical issue wherein it was emphasized that approval was granted without examining the assessment records or ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta the searched material and, Hon‟ble High Court in Paragraph 13, extracted the findings of the Tribunal as under:- “13. In another words, it was emphasized that the approval was granted

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

disallowances have been made by the assessing officer without considering the relevant submissions and detailed documentary evidences placed on record by the appellant, despite the specific directions of the DRP. Further, the documentary evidences have not been controverted by the assessing officer before making the additions. 41. In fact, the appellant had, during the course of assessment proceedings even offered

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

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

2)(iii)]: (a) Disallowance (both interest and administrative expenditure) should be computed only qua the investment which actually yielded exempt income during the year under consideration [refer ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT: 374 ITR 108 (Del), PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd: 261 Taxman 47 (Del), REI Agro Ltd vs. DCIT: 144 ITD 141(Kol.), ACIT v. Vireet Investments

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and\ncomputed the amount of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of INR\n1,89,40,151/-. The AO also disallowed half percent of the average value of\ninvestment which comes to INR 15 Lakhs under section 37(1) of the Act.\n6. Both the disallowances were deleted by the Ld.CIT

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

2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and\ncomputed the amount of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of INR\n1,89,40,151/-. The AO also disallowed half percent of the average value of\ninvestment which comes to INR 15 Lakhs under section 37(1) of the Act.\n6. Both the disallowances were deleted by the Ld.CIT

HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of

disallowance of a request for additional evidence to be produced before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a question of law. Having given our thoughtful consideration, we are of the opinion that the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not matter of right

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code, 1860\nand also for the purpose of section 196 of I.P.C. and every\nIncome-tax Authority is a court for the purpose of section 195 of\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Though having regard to the\nlanguage of the provision, we have some reservations on the\nsaid view expressed in Rajesh Kumar

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

2 SCC 181 it has been held that\nin view of section 136 of the Act, proceedings before an\nAssessing Officer are deemed to be judicial proceedings. Section\n136 of the Act, stipulates that any proceeding before an Income-\nTax Authority shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within\nthe meaning of sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is\nallowed

256)\n508,800,787\n156,792,722\n621,765\n489,437\n132,328\n1,000\n1,000\nAdd: Interest paid on income tax(AY 2004-05)- u/s 40(a)(ia)\n1,340,217\n1,340,217\nAdd: Amt disallowed for non deduction of TDS- u/s 40(a)(ia)\n932,588\n932,588\nAdd: Provision for Obsolence and slow moving inventory