THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

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

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

disallowance.” 30. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra), we allow ground nos.8 to 8.2. 31. With regard to Ground Nos.9 to 9.4 regarding income from trading in mutual funds/shares treated as business income and not as long term/short term capital gain, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “The appellant, as a consistent practice, has been

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

disallowance.” 30. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra), we allow ground nos.8 to 8.2. 31. With regard to Ground Nos.9 to 9.4 regarding income from trading in mutual funds/shares treated as business income and not as long term/short term capital gain, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “The appellant, as a consistent practice, has been

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

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14 A read with rule 8 D will be restricted to direct expenses incurred in the earning of dividend income.” 10. It is also important to note that the Tribunal has held in case where securities are held as stock-in-trade, the disallowance will be restricted to Rule-8D(2)(i) i.e. expenses incurred directly in relation

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. TV TODAY NETWORK LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

264/-. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of 2022:DHC:2951-DB ITA 227/2022 Page 10 of 21 employee's contribution to PF 30. With respect to the disallowance of Rs. 43,14,198/- made by AO under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. TV TODAY NETWORK LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

264/-. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002951 ITA 227/2022 Page 10 of 21 employee's contribution to PF 30. With respect to the disallowance of Rs. 43,14,198/- made by AO under Section

TV TODAY NETWORK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

disallowance should have been deleted, considering the judgment favorable to assessee. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts by only giving relief of a sum of Rs. 9, 90, 264/- under section

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNBEAM AUTO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

264 of the Act in the case of the assessee pertaining to AY 2007-08 to 2010- 11 wherein he held that the subsidy was liable to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation to section 43 stands set aside by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered on 07.12.2017 (copy at page

SUNBEAM AUTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

264 of the Act in the case of the assessee pertaining to AY 2007-08 to 2010- 11 wherein he held that the subsidy was liable to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation to section 43 stands set aside by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered on 07.12.2017 (copy at page

SUNBEAM AUTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

264 of the Act in the case of the assessee pertaining to AY 2007-08 to 2010- 11 wherein he held that the subsidy was liable to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation to section 43 stands set aside by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered on 07.12.2017 (copy at page

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

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The CIT(A) thus declined to interfere. 7.3 The CIT(A) however reversed the addition made to the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act in the light of the decision rendered by the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415. 8. Further

MANSAROVER BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M/S Mansarover Builders (Pvt) Ltd. Dcit/Acit, 48/12, Commercial Centre, Circle-6(1), Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri Room No. 413, Vs. New Delhi- 110021 C. R. Building, New Delhi Pan : Aaacm6591R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(2) and 14 A read with rule 8D of the Act. 30. As these issues have already been decided by us for assessment year 2006-07, following same, we direct the A.O to adopt the same course for these grounds as discussed above. 31. Ground No. 2 is in respect of consultancy expenses incurred by assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 14A of the Act. The investments was made out of own funds and not borrowed funds and therefore, the assessee has not made any disallowance out of interest expenditure. The Ld. AR’s contentions that under Rule 8D (2)(iii), what is disallowable is an amount equal to ½ percentage of the average value of investment, the income from which

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 14A of the Act. The investments was made out of own funds and not borrowed funds and therefore, the assessee has not made any disallowance out of interest expenditure. The Ld. AR’s contentions that under Rule 8D (2)(iii), what is disallowable is an amount equal to ½ percentage of the average value of investment, the income from which

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 41(1) may not be legally permissible to the Revenue. In the light of the discussions above, we do not agree with the stand of the Department that the amounts in question which are part of the inter branch transactions requires to be brought to tax as income of the assessee in the year in question.” 18. The above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 41(1) may not be legally permissible to the Revenue. In the light of the discussions above, we do not agree with the stand of the Department that the amounts in question which are part of the inter branch transactions requires to be brought to tax as income of the assessee in the year in question.” 18. The above