BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

41 results for “disallowance”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai64Delhi41Bangalore36Chennai22Ahmedabad16Cochin14Jaipur14Hyderabad7Amritsar7Panaji5Lucknow5Kolkata5Chandigarh4Indore4Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur3Ranchi3Pune2Rajkot2Surat2Jabalpur1SC1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 271G26Section 2(22)(e)21Addition to Income20Disallowance18Penalty18Section 271C17Section 271D14Section 143(3)12Section 234E12Section 40

M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2999/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

8
Section 271B8
Deduction8

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2601/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 436/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 433/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2602/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3165/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2180/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4672/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1885/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 909/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 908/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section 94(8) were introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Therefore, assessee’s claim that being unaware of the change in the statutory provision, which for the first time became applicable to the impugned assessment year

ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. TV 18 BROADCAST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2208/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., Circle – 76(1) 414,1St Floor, Empire New Delhi Complex, Lower Parel Mumbai, Murtijapur, Maharashtra – 110 001 Pan : Aaccg 3666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 40

section 273B for non deduction of tax.? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the parties were not identifiable without factual exercise of verification which is considered as necessary for determination? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

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:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers & Ors.(374 ITR 35) wherein it was held – “dismissing

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

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:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers & Ors.(374 ITR 35) wherein it was held – “dismissing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., GURGAON

The appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 3530/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3530/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2008-09) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Dcit Convergys Customer Circle-1(2)(1), International Management Group Inc. Taxation, Room No. 409, C/O. Price Waterhosue E-2 Block, 4Th Floor, Civic Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Centre, Near Minto Road Building No. 10, 17Th Floor, New Delhi Tower-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 254Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 9(1)Section 92D

disallowance relating to PeopleSoft License cost/Maintenance charges amounting to Rs.68,17,878/- and the same as taxable on gross basis at 15% as “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1) (vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the DTAA. As regards the IPLC/link charges amounting to Rs. 53,282,192/-, the Assessing Officer held that the same

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., GURGAON

The appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 3529/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3530/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2008-09) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Dcit Convergys Customer Circle-1(2)(1), International Management Group Inc. Taxation, Room No. 409, C/O. Price Waterhosue E-2 Block, 4Th Floor, Civic Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Centre, Near Minto Road Building No. 10, 17Th Floor, New Delhi Tower-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 254Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 9(1)Section 92D

disallowance relating to PeopleSoft License cost/Maintenance charges amounting to Rs.68,17,878/- and the same as taxable on gross basis at 15% as “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1) (vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the DTAA. As regards the IPLC/link charges amounting to Rs. 53,282,192/-, the Assessing Officer held that the same

SONIA MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 69, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7792/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sonia Malik, Vs. Jcit, 229, Ground Floor, Range-69, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anqpm9150J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th Septemfebr, 2018 Passed By The Cit(A)-21, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Various Grounds Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.3,25,000/- Levied By The Jcit U/S 271D Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 54F

disallowed a aprt of the long-term capital gain claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the IT Act apart from making addition of Rs.57,538/- on account of interest and Rs.8,160/- under the head ‘Salary.’ During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had taken cash loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from Shri

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. KAVITA BEHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6529/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Saxena & Sh. Devinder KFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Section 271DSection 271E

273B was also incorporated in the statute which provides that no penalty shall be imposable on a person or an assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for such failure. In other words, penalty is not automatic under section 271D on mere

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. KAVITA BEHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6528/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Saxena & Sh. Devinder KFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Section 271DSection 271E

273B was also incorporated in the statute which provides that no penalty shall be imposable on a person or an assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for such failure. In other words, penalty is not automatic under section 271D on mere