TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

271G deserves to be deleted, because the turn over limit stands from Rs. 5 Crores to Rs. 20 Crores, and also because the provision of section 40A(2)(b) stands omitted from section 928BA (meaning of specified domestic transaction.” Estimation of Profit/Section 40A(2)(b): 4. Brief background of the case is as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 271G of I.T. Act, 1961 is itself deleted, other objections raised by the appellant before the TPO and in appeal are considered relevant and are not discussed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. ITA Nos. 2358 & 2359/Del/2019 M/s. S. N. Exports 7. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 271G of I.T. Act, 1961 is itself deleted, other objections raised by the appellant before the TPO and in appeal are considered relevant and are not discussed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. ITA Nos. 2358 & 2359/Del/2019 M/s. S. N. Exports 7. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METALS RUSSIA INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri T.S. Kapoor

271G of the Act are not applicable.” 15 ITA.No.108/Del./2014 M/s. Metals Russia India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 3.5. The assessee further objected to the Order of the A.O. to apply provisions of Section 44BBB of the I.T. Act. The assessee relied upon several decisions in this regard that provisions of Section 44BBB would not apply to the facts

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under Section 37 of the Act. 13. That the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law- in making addition of Rs. 15.47.14!/-. being the value of closing stock recorded in the books of accounts of the Assessee, by treating the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. 13.1 That the Assessing Officer

M/S BT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 442/Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) & I.T.A. No. 302/Del/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Bt (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle 5(1), 11Th Floor, New Delhi Eros Corporate Tower, Opp. International Trade Tower Nehru Place, New Delhi -110 019 Gir / Pan :Aabcc4785E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv. Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2018 Order Per Beena A. Pillai, Jm: Present Appeals Have Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28/12/15 & Order Dated 09/12/16, Passed By Ld. Acit, Circle 5 (1), New Delhi Under Section 144 (3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For

disallowance, which is in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 26. the learned AO / DRP have erred by alleging that legal and professional expenses were not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 27. the learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 28. the learned AO has erred

M/S. BT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 442/Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) & I.T.A. No. 302/Del/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Bt (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle 5(1), 11Th Floor, New Delhi Eros Corporate Tower, Opp. International Trade Tower Nehru Place, New Delhi -110 019 Gir / Pan :Aabcc4785E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv. Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2018 Order Per Beena A. Pillai, Jm: Present Appeals Have Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28/12/15 & Order Dated 09/12/16, Passed By Ld. Acit, Circle 5 (1), New Delhi Under Section 144 (3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For

disallowance, which is in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 26. the learned AO / DRP have erred by alleging that legal and professional expenses were not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 27. the learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 28. the learned AO has erred

CITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., Vs Dcit, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, Circle-3(1), 124, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 (Pan: Aaacc5029L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Ms Pushpa Sharma, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Order

disallowed on ad hoc basis and in Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 again, the department allowed the entire expenditure in the year in which the expenditure was incurred. It was also submitted that wherever payments have been made towards reimbursement of expenses to agents for procuring orders for sale, tax had been duly deducted at source

SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

271G of the Act.\n\n2.\nFurther, it is also noticed that the assessee company has allotted shares to the following\ncompanies:-\n\nS.N..\n\nAllottee Name\n\nNo. Of\nshares allotted\n\nAmount of share\napplication (Rs.)\n\n1\n\nM/s. Jits Courier & Finance Pvt.Ltd\n71, Canning Streert, R.No C-525, Kolkata

M/S BRAHMA CENTER DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 373/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Brahma Center Development Vs Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Flat No. B-8, Cabin No. Ward-5(2), 11, Ansal Tower, 38, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb1294N Assessee By : Sh. Rahul K. Mitra & Atul Jain, Cas, Revenue By : Sh. Amrendra Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

section 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 4. The AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred on facts and in law in disallowing the part of interest paid by the appellant on the ground that the interest @ 12% paid by him on Compulsory Convertible Debenture during the year do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under

M/S. SIS LIVE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishisis Live Acit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Central Circle-17, Room No. Vs. Golf View Corporate Tower B, 356, E-2, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances. 5. The ld. AR, in support of the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment, argued that the AO was unnecessarily carried away by the Shunglu Committee Report. He submitted that Shunglu Committee Report was made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and, further, the AO ignored the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation

KEANE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2002-03 Keane India Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 5(1), Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi. Sector- 43, Sushant Lok, Vs. Gurgaon.

section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’). 4.10 The Ld. AO erred in rejecting use of multiple year data for benchmarking purposes. 4.11 The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271G of the Act for delayed submission of prescribed documentation per rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1992. The grounds of appeal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHASHIAN DI HATTI PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The present appeals are filed by the Revenue. These four appeals comprised of two quantum appeals and two penalty appeals. The issues are common in these appeals. Therefore, we are taking up brief facts of Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 1799/DEL/2015. 4. M/s. Mahashayan Di Hatti Limited (hereinafter referred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHASHIAN DI HATTI LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The present appeals are filed by the Revenue. These four appeals comprised of two quantum appeals and two penalty appeals. The issues are common in these appeals. Therefore, we are taking up brief facts of Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 1799/DEL/2015. 4. M/s. Mahashayan Di Hatti Limited (hereinafter referred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHASHIYAN DI HATTI LTD, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The present appeals are filed by the Revenue. These four appeals comprised of two quantum appeals and two penalty appeals. The issues are common in these appeals. Therefore, we are taking up brief facts of Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 1799/DEL/2015. 4. M/s. Mahashayan Di Hatti Limited (hereinafter referred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHASHIYAN DI HATTI LTD, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The present appeals are filed by the Revenue. These four appeals comprised of two quantum appeals and two penalty appeals. The issues are common in these appeals. Therefore, we are taking up brief facts of Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 1799/DEL/2015. 4. M/s. Mahashayan Di Hatti Limited (hereinafter referred