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

section 40a(ia) vide the Finance Act 2014, w.e.f. 01.04.2015 wherein the disallowance of expenditure was reduced from 100% to 30

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

section 40a(ia) vide the Finance Act 2014, w.e.f. 01.04.2015 wherein the disallowance of expenditure was reduced from 100% to 30

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

30 bonds, and mutual funds, which was exempt under section 10(34)/l 0(35)/l 0(15)(iv)(h) of the Act. [Details of exempt income is at pages 289-290 of Paperbook (merits)]. In view of the provisions of section 14A of the Act, the assessee suo moto disallowed

M/S. FCML PROJECTS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year : 2009-10 Fcml Projects, Acit, Circle- 28(1), A-217, Vs. New Delhi. Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaff 1343 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Fcml Projects, Acit, Circle- 28(1), A-217, Vs. New Delhi. Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaff 1343 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance per se. After the Finance Act, 1992, section 40(b)(iv) of the 1961 Act places limitations on the deductions under sections 30

M/S FCML PROJECTS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year : 2009-10 Fcml Projects, Acit, Circle- 28(1), A-217, Vs. New Delhi. Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaff 1343 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Fcml Projects, Acit, Circle- 28(1), A-217, Vs. New Delhi. Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaff 1343 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance per se. After the Finance Act, 1992, section 40(b)(iv) of the 1961 Act places limitations on the deductions under sections 30

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

TRIVENI TURBINE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowed under Section 37(1) cannot be claimed under another provision, such as Section 80G, by Page 10 of 16 merely giving a different nomenclature to the same expenditure. 3. Restriction on CR Deductions in Finance Act, 2015: * The Finance Act, 2015, further clarified that only CR expenses that qualify under Sections 30

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

disallowance of Rs.2,22,53,467/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Appellant has submitted as follows: • It has invested Rs.850,000,000 on March 30

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

disallowance of Rs.2,22,53,467/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Appellant has submitted as follows: • It has invested Rs.850,000,000 on March 30

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

disallowance of Rs.2,22,53,467/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Appellant has submitted as follows: • It has invested Rs.850,000,000 on March 30

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

disallowance of Rs.2,22,53,467/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Appellant has submitted as follows: • It has invested Rs.850,000,000 on March 30

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- and Rs. 2,89,99,437/- respectively claimed by the assessee under section 36 (i) (viii) of the Act. The Ld. AO discussed this issue in para 5 page 30

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- and Rs. 2,89,99,437/- respectively claimed by the assessee under section 36 (i) (viii) of the Act. The Ld. AO discussed this issue in para 5 page 30

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- and Rs. 2,89,99,437/- respectively claimed by the assessee under section 36 (i) (viii) of the Act. The Ld. AO discussed this issue in para 5 page 30

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- and Rs. 2,89,99,437/- respectively claimed by the assessee under section 36 (i) (viii) of the Act. The Ld. AO discussed this issue in para 5 page 30

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

section 80IC were satisfied by the assessee. 30. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing

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 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged default in deduction of tax at source by the appellant. 21.5. Without prejudice, the Assessing Officer erred on fact and in law in not not appreciating that the disallowance could not have exceeded 30

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)

30 ITA No. 7552 & CO. 27/Del./2018 attributable to the earning of the exempt income. Of course, the assessing officer made further disallowance of Rs.28,63,13,621. 13. The primary and main contention of assessee before us is, disallowance of expenditure under Section