DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

28. It was contended that unless and until there was actual expenditure for earning the exempted income, there could not be any disallowance under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

28. It was contended that unless and until there was actual expenditure for earning the exempted income, there could not be any disallowance under section

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

28 assessment years 2007-08 and 2008- 09, wherein disallowance of expenditure on account of re-imbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by professionals/vendors under section

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

section 28 of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

section 28 of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

section 28 of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

section 28 of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowing expenditure of Rs.54,16,55,012 (being 30% of total amount of Rs. 1,80,55,16,707) incurred towards quarterly target/turnover discount and trade discount of Rs. 17,07,28,214 (being 30% of total amount of Rs.56,90,94,045) given to the dealers/customers under section

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

28,68,80,008 (Rs. 328.68 crores), out of total expenditure of Rs. 454.32 crores on account of royalty/technical guidance fee/model fee and cess on model fee, after reducing amount of Rs. 1607.70 lacs disallowed under section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

28. Now we take up the appeals of the Revenue. 29. Ground No. (a) and Ground No. 1 in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 relate to disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- and Rs. 11,41,153/- respectively . In making the impugned disallowances the Ld. AO followed the order of AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

28. Now we take up the appeals of the Revenue. 29. Ground No. (a) and Ground No. 1 in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 relate to disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- and Rs. 11,41,153/- respectively . In making the impugned disallowances the Ld. AO followed the order of AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

28. Now we take up the appeals of the Revenue. 29. Ground No. (a) and Ground No. 1 in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 relate to disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- and Rs. 11,41,153/- respectively . In making the impugned disallowances the Ld. AO followed the order of AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

28. Now we take up the appeals of the Revenue. 29. Ground No. (a) and Ground No. 1 in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 relate to disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- and Rs. 11,41,153/- respectively . In making the impugned disallowances the Ld. AO followed the order of AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein

M/S. LUCKY EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

disallowed bad debt of Rs,44,28,000/- on the ground that provisions of Section 36(l)(vii) read with

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

28,73,862 on account of interest on non-convertible debentures (NCDs). Whereas, it has only considered a part of such interest cost for the purpose of disallowance under Section

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance