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

disallowance of Rs. 13,29,988/- on the following basis: - The assessing officer has only referred the tax audit report and has not made any query to the assessee - The tax has been deducted and deposited was fully justified. Assessee’s Submission At the outset the provisions of 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

disallowance of Rs. 13,29,988/- on the following basis: - The assessing officer has only referred the tax audit report and has not made any query to the assessee - The tax has been deducted and deposited was fully justified. Assessee’s Submission At the outset the provisions of 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

section 40(a)(ia) was deleted on the ground that same did not have any element of income in the hands of the recipient. It would also be pertinent to point out that similar disallowance made in the draft AO order, but subsequently deleted by the DRP, was challenged in Revenue’s appeal

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

disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 29. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing

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 154 of the Act the AO has rectified the said disallowance by restricting it to Rs.50,29,087. The copy

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 154 of the Act the AO has rectified the said disallowance by restricting it to Rs.50,29,087. The copy

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 154 of the Act the AO has rectified the said disallowance by restricting it to Rs.50,29,087. The copy

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 154 of the Act the AO has rectified the said disallowance by restricting it to Rs.50,29,087. The copy

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORAITON vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

29) of the Act on the receipts of interest on fixed deposit, agency commission and miscellaneous receipts. The Assessing Officer also alleged non-cooperation in bifurcating income exempt and not-exempt as such application of Section 14A could not be applied. The entire exemption was disallowed

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

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

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC to the extent of Rs.2,05,97,466 on account of interest income earned by the eligible unit on loan given at subsidized rates to the employees and loan given for providing working capital loan to vendors. Re: Non-allowance of depreciation on iease-hold rights in land 21. That the assessing officer

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

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 it is, interalia alleged that the assessee has made investment

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

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 it is, interalia alleged that the assessee has made investment

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

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 it is, interalia alleged that the assessee has made investment

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

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 it is, interalia alleged that the assessee has made investment

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)

29 ITA No. 7552 & CO. 27/Del./2018 sub-section (3) of section 14Aof the Act. Therefore, for this reason, too the disallowance

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

disallowance can be made under section 14A of the said Act. 0 Scope of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A 29

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowance can be made under section 14A of the said Act. 0 Scope of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A 29

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowance can be made under section 14A of the said Act. Scope of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A 29