DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH MEHTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Cit, Vs. Shri Mahesh Mehta, Cc-3, 2042, Katra Tobacco, Room No. 355, 3Rd Floor, Khari Baoli, Delhi - 6 Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan: Agbpm7320C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Respondent By : None

1. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 80IB of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 49,246/-. 2(a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leaves to add, alter oa amend

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S TIMES INTERNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

disallowance be deleted, in our considered opinion, is no more a valid proposition in view of the insertion of section 268A by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1999. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section read as under :- `(2) Where, in pursuance of the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1

M/S TIMES INTERNET LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

disallowance be deleted, in our considered opinion, is no more a valid proposition in view of the insertion of section 268A by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1999. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section read as under :- `(2) Where, in pursuance of the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S CELL COM TELSESERVICES PVT. LTD.,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2683/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit Circle-1 Vs Cell Com Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., A- Ghaziabad 52, A-36, Upsidc Industrial Area, Sikandarabad, Bulandshahar- 203205 Pan-Aaccc1688D (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 51/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Cell Com Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., A- Vs Dcit Circle-1 52, A-36, Upsidc Industrial Area, Ghaziabad Sikandarabad, Bulandshahar-203205 Pan-Aaccc1688D (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No- Aaccc1688D Assessee By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018

1,27,284/- out of disallowance of Rs. 12,36,720/- made u/s 43B ignoring the fact that it has been levied on account of Non- registration with VAT Authorities which being mandated by law and an expenditure in infringement of law is not allowable u/s 43B. ii. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well

M/S HALDIRAM MANUACTUING CO. PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: H.S Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., B-1/H-3, Mohan Co- Tax, Range 12, New Delhi Operative Indl. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaach3170K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Tax, Circle-12(1), New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-1/H-3, Mohan Co- Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaach3170K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 of the appeal is general in nature, hence, not required to adjudicate upon. 5. As regard to ground no. 2 qua sustaining of disallowance of Rs. 3,24,221/- out of the disallowance of Rs. 11,51,149/- on account of interest expenditure, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the contention of the assessee in respect of interest free

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HALDIRAM MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: H.S Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., B-1/H-3, Mohan Co- Tax, Range 12, New Delhi Operative Indl. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaach3170K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Tax, Circle-12(1), New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-1/H-3, Mohan Co- Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaach3170K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 of the appeal is general in nature, hence, not required to adjudicate upon. 5. As regard to ground no. 2 qua sustaining of disallowance of Rs. 3,24,221/- out of the disallowance of Rs. 11,51,149/- on account of interest expenditure, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the contention of the assessee in respect of interest free

M/S. LAKHANI INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Lakhani India Ltd, Circle-Ii, Block-B, Plot No. 131, New Cgo Complex, Nh-Iv, Nit, Sector-24, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Aaacl3113G (Appellant) (Respondent) Lakhani India Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 131, Circle-Ii, Block-B, Sector-24, Faridabad New Cgo Complex, Nh-Iv, Pan: Aaacl3113G Nit, Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of ₹ 3559022. As this is the only issue involved in the appeal of the revenue and the tax effect in the issue of the appeal is less than ₹ 2,000,000/– . 16. At the time of framing the order of the appeal, it is noticed that Section 268A has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. URBANE THE DESIGN WORKSHOP, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 4330/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs Urbane The Design Workshop, 5, South Appts Mis Flats, 1St Floor, Circle-61(1), New Delhi Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfu7451L Co No. 303/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Urbane The Design Workshop, Vs Acit, 5, South Appts Mis Flats, 1St Circle-61(1), Floor, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfu7451L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: The Appeal By The Department & The Cross Objection Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-20, New Delhi.

1 Crore respectively should be pursued for dismissal as withdrawn/ not pressed. References before High Court and SLPs/ appeals below these limits may not be considered henceforth. 13. This Circular will apply to SLPs/ appeals/ cross objections/ references to be filed henceforth in SC/HCs/Tribunal and it shall also apply retrospectively to pending SLPs/ appeals/ cross objections/references. Pending appeals below

ACIT, NAJIBABAD vs. SHRI DHRUV RAJ SINGH, BIJNOR

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowance of Rs.2,17,337/- in r/o alleged reimbursements ignoring the facts that the assessee has initially denied receipt of any amount towards reimbursements. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs.8,40,000/- made as deemed rent u/s 23(1

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KOKOLATH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowance is called for. 9.4. Pertinently, no addition having been made for the year by the Assessing Officer, the alternate contention of the assessee to the effect that no addition can be made during the year, stands accepted by both the Authorities below. 9.5. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in any case do not apply

RAJ KUMAR KEDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department as well as of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3354/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dcit Vs Raj Kumar Kedia Central Circle-13, Room No. 332 59/17, Bahubali Apartment Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Rohtak Road New Delhi New Delhi Aaopk7634A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3098Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Raj Kumar Kedia Vs Acit 59/17, Bahubali Apartment Central Circle-13 New Rohtak Road Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension Aaopk7634A New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In the assessee’s appeal following grounds have been raised:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the additions /disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are beyond the scope/jurisdiction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR KEDIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department as well as of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3354/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dcit Vs Raj Kumar Kedia Central Circle-13, Room No. 332 59/17, Bahubali Apartment Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Rohtak Road New Delhi New Delhi Aaopk7634A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3098Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Raj Kumar Kedia Vs Acit 59/17, Bahubali Apartment Central Circle-13 New Rohtak Road Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension Aaopk7634A New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In the assessee’s appeal following grounds have been raised:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the additions /disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are beyond the scope/jurisdiction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPER PLASTIC COATS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant -Do- :2006-07 -Do- :2003-04 -Do- :2004-05 -Do- :2005-06 -Do- :2007-08 -Do- :2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Super Plastic Coats Central Circle-13, (P)Ltd., West Punjab New Delhi. Bagh, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaecs2311M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We thus dismiss the said appeal as such as not maintainable. 2. In the appeals for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Revenue has raised common issue questioning the validity of action of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IKEA TRADING INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

1,070,000 Security deposits paid to the landlord for Pune 183,576 office not refunded Advance paid to landlord for employee’s residence 6,500 not refunded Security deposit paid to landlord for employee’s 8,000 residence not refunded Total 2,218,076 4.1 From the above table it is observed that the breakup of advance rent

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 17, NEW DELHI vs. SDB INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Departmental Appeal is not maintainable as have been filed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

disallowance under section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 ITA.No.4011/Del./2018 M/s. SDB Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi. 2. The assessee moved an application for early hearing of the appeal because the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is below Rs.20 lakhs. However, none appeared on behalf of the Revenue. The claim of assessee is that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SCALE MENTHOL INDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2006-07] & Co No. 70/Del/2013 (A/O Ita No. 379/Del/2012 [A.Y 2007-08])

disallowance of Rs. 1,20,52,213/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. 3. A perusal of the grievances of the revenue shows that the tax effect would be less than Rs. 50 lakhs and hence both the appeals have to be dismissed

M/S. SHARP MENTHOL INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2006-07] & Co No. 70/Del/2013 (A/O Ita No. 379/Del/2012 [A.Y 2007-08])

disallowance of Rs. 1,20,52,213/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. 3. A perusal of the grievances of the revenue shows that the tax effect would be less than Rs. 50 lakhs and hence both the appeals have to be dismissed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHARP MENTHOL INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2006-07] & Co No. 70/Del/2013 (A/O Ita No. 379/Del/2012 [A.Y 2007-08])

disallowance of Rs. 1,20,52,213/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. 3. A perusal of the grievances of the revenue shows that the tax effect would be less than Rs. 50 lakhs and hence both the appeals have to be dismissed