M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowance u/s 14A in the AY 2007-08. The question is one of applicability of the principles to the facts in a given case. It has been a well-settled view that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of that case. What is of essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation

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 an expense per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of its income. Concealment invokes penal action and hence it has to be proved as a conscious act on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal an element of income. The essential pre-condition for invoking Explanation I to section 27I

M/S AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

Disallowance of circuit accruals 2.1. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in making a disallowance of Rs. 31,614 on account of circuit accruals created towards bandwidth and last mile services availed by the Appellant company, ignoring that the accruals were based on a reasonable and scientific basis

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

Disallowance of circuit accruals 2.1. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in making a disallowance of Rs. 31,614 on account of circuit accruals created towards bandwidth and last mile services availed by the Appellant company, ignoring that the accruals were based on a reasonable and scientific basis

GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Granite Services Dcit International India Private Vs Circle-10(2), Limited, Building No.7A, New Delhi 5Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Sector -25A, Gurgaon-122002 Pan Aaccg3374Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Employee's contribution to the Provident Fund (PF) to the extent of INR 517,463. That the Ld. AO and the Hon’ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the 10.1. said amount was duly deposited on or before the filing of return of income for the year under consideration and therefore is allowable in view of section

FIELDCORE SERVICE SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowance under section 4o(a)(i) of the Act. 9.3. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and the Hon’ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the services provided by the employees seconded to Appellant company do not ‘make available’ any technical know-how, skills, etc., as provided under

MAVENIR INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMVERSE NETWORK SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURGOAN

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrar Assessment Year: 2016-17

disallowance is warranted in the subject year; 6.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. AO has erred in alleging that the Appellant failed to submit details pertaining to section 10AA of the Act despite several opportunities; 6.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the evidences placed

GURMEET KAUR KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 45(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasmt. Gurmeet Kaur Kalra, Vs. Acit, Gb-8, Shivaji Vihar, Circle 45(1), New Delhi-110027 New Delhi Pan No. Afhpk8679R (Appellant) (Respondent)

27i(i)(c)of the Act in respect of the following disallowances made in the assessment order, Gurmeet Kaur Kalra 3 disregarding the submissions made by the appellant in this regard: a. Disallowance of INR 1,13,30,664/ on account of non- production of confirmation from sundry creditors under section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL CARS & MOTORS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of preliminary expenses, rejection of claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) partly upheld the additions vide order dated 03/12/2013. In respect of additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer issued show cause to the assessee as why penalty under section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL CARS & MOTORS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of preliminary expenses, rejection of claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) partly upheld the additions vide order dated 03/12/2013. In respect of additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer issued show cause to the assessee as why penalty under section

SUGAM VANIJYA HOLDINGS P.LTD,BENGLURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms Suchitra Kamblesugam Vanijya Holdings Vs Dcit Private Limited Circle-24(2) Vr Bengaluru, No. 11B, C.R.Building, Survey No. 40/9, New Delhi-110002 Dyvasandra Industrial Area 2Nd Stage, Kr Puram Hobli, Bengaluru- 560048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. Harpreet Ajmani, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Anupham Kant Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2020

disallowance/ additions and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 27i(i)(c) of the Act. The above grounds are without

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LOUIS DREYFUR COMMODITIES INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 27i(i)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts

M/S. LOUIS DREYFUS COMMODITIES,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 27i(i)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts

M/S. MS SHOES EAST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

27I(1)(C) read with Section 275 are not applicable at all. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied by the A.O. 3. The Assessee has neither concealed nor filed inaccurate particulars of its income, thus the provisions of Section 271(1 )(c) are not applicable at all. 2 ITA No.116/Del./2014 4. There

M/S. METENERE LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2008-09] M/S Metenere Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T 138-19, Main Road Central Circle – 18, Ghazipur, Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacm 8484 F [Appellant] [Respondent]

Disallowance u/s 14A (as discussed above) 10607464 11606,9205 Total book profit 4 1160®2G50 Rounded off After discussion the total income of the assessee is computed at ? Nil u/s. 143(3) of the I T Act, 1961, however, the tax liability is computed at Rs. 116,06,92,050/- u/s. 115JB of I T Act. issue, necessary forms after

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHUSHAN STEEL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A. C.I.T Vs. M/S Bhushan Steel Ltd Circle – 3 F-Block, International Trade Tower, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaccb 7445 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ashwini Kumar, Ca Shri Rahul Chourasia, Ca

disallowance of claim of the assessee to reduce the profit eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, addition made on account of provision of bad and doubtful debts reduced by the assessee from the books profits, addition made on account of provision for FBT and addition made on account of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowed. In this Assessment Order, the Book Profit for the purposes of Section 115JB was determined at Rs. 3,61,09,972/-. Penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act were also initiated by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short). Vide order dated 08.06.2010, in appeal no. 54/CIT(A)XVII/Del/08-09, Ld. CIT(A) Page

M/S. SENIOR INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. The said provision made was towards accrued liability ought to have been held allowable as such. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in mis-interpreting the 2.1. ‘matching concept’, and holding that provision for warranty of INR 7,37,150 made by the Appellant