HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 45.8. Without prejudice the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not holding that depreciation was allowable on the payment of export commission if the same were to constitute capital expenditure. 46. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in making ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.12

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.3857/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

275/- u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the I.T. Rules which was subsequently reduced u/s 154 of the I.T. Act to Rs.72,85,822/-)”. 5. The assessee has filed the cross objections on the following grounds : “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs.26.86.438/- under section

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be sustain without any satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer before applying Rule 8D of the Rules, reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Pr.CIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 244 Taxman 309 (Del.), Joint Investments P. Ltd. v. CIT: 275

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. P. LTD.

disallowance of `3,07,77,285/- and as a consequence penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee was duly informed about the initiation of penalty proceedings. (g) Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28th February, 2003 the Assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

MMTC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-17(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of Rs.6 lakh claimed under Section 35AC of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the impugned order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.03.2019 concerning Assessment Year 2009-10 in question is barred by limitation and therefore, is nullity

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

section 80IA(8) of the Act and the transaction was a genuine business transaction borne out of commercial expediency. We also find that the Tribunal has, in the appeal for the assessment years 2009-10, 2012-13 and 2013-14, decided the issue in favor of the assessee company following the aforesaid order passed for assessment years

GYAN ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 14A read with clause (ii) of Rule 8D is deleted. 7.4 Clause (iii) Disallowance of 5 percent of average investment of Rs 11075508. The A.O has worked out the disallowance by taking 5 percent of the average value of investments as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee on the first day and the last

ACIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI, C.R. BUILDING, ITO NEW DELHI vs. GYAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , PUNJABI BHAWAN, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 14A read with clause (ii) of Rule 8D is deleted. 7.4 Clause (iii) Disallowance of 5 percent of average investment of Rs 11075508. The A.O has worked out the disallowance by taking 5 percent of the average value of investments as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee on the first day and the last

GYAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 14A read with clause (ii) of Rule 8D is deleted. 7.4 Clause (iii) Disallowance of 5 percent of average investment of Rs 11075508. The A.O has worked out the disallowance by taking 5 percent of the average value of investments as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee on the first day and the last

ACIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI, C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. GYAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 14A read with clause (ii) of Rule 8D is deleted. 7.4 Clause (iii) Disallowance of 5 percent of average investment of Rs 11075508. The A.O has worked out the disallowance by taking 5 percent of the average value of investments as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee on the first day and the last

GYAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 14A read with clause (ii) of Rule 8D is deleted. 7.4 Clause (iii) Disallowance of 5 percent of average investment of Rs 11075508. The A.O has worked out the disallowance by taking 5 percent of the average value of investments as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee on the first day and the last

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

disallowances made by him whereas, penalty proceedings were duly initiated by CIT(A) while deciding the appeal against quantum order ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting penalty imposable u/s 271(1)(c) on addition of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- made

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance of Rs.3,07,77,285/- and as a consequence, penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee was duly informed about the initiation of penalty proceedings. (vii) Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28.02.2003 the Assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the stand

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

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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)

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

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)

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

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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)

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

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)

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. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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)

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

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)

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