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)

section 14A of the Act cannot be made in the absence of any exempt income. In coming to the said 19 ITA No. 7552 & CO. 27/Del./2018 conclusion, the Hon’ble Court observed as under [refer pages 56-62 of CLPB II]: “13. We are confused about the stand taken by the appellant-Revenue. Thus, we had asked senior standing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

301 as well as the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in case of SIL Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT: 148 TTJ 213 (Del.), wherein the Tribunal held that no disallowance could be made under Section

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

301 as well as the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in case of SIL Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT: 148 TTJ 213 (Del.), wherein the Tribunal held that no disallowance could be made under Section

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

301 as well as the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in case of SIL Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT: 148 TTJ 213 (Del.), wherein the Tribunal held that no disallowance could be made under Section

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

301 as well as the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in case of SIL Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT: 148 TTJ 213 (Del.), wherein the Tribunal held that no disallowance could be made under Section

TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

301 as well as the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in case of SIL Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT: 148 TTJ 213 (Del.), wherein the Tribunal held that no disallowance could be made under Section

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

301, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi PAN :AAAJO0032A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/shri Susheel Kumar Gupta & D.C. Garg, CAs Respondent by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.03.2019 Date of pronouncement 04.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These three appeals by the assessee are directed against common order dated 16/23.06.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner

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

301, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi PAN :AAAJO0032A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/shri Susheel Kumar Gupta & D.C. Garg, CAs Respondent by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.03.2019 Date of pronouncement 04.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These three appeals by the assessee are directed against common order dated 16/23.06.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner

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

301, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi PAN :AAAJO0032A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/shri Susheel Kumar Gupta & D.C. Garg, CAs Respondent by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.03.2019 Date of pronouncement 04.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These three appeals by the assessee are directed against common order dated 16/23.06.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner

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 cannot be made. 7.3.3 In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court(supra) and in the absence of any evidence put forth by the A.O to show that the borrowed funds had been diverted for making the investments, the proportionate disallowance of interest of Rs 301

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14A cannot be made. 7.3.3 In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court(supra) and in the absence of any evidence put forth by the A.O to show that the borrowed funds had been diverted for making the investments, the proportionate disallowance of interest of Rs 301

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 cannot be made. 7.3.3 In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court(supra) and in the absence of any evidence put forth by the A.O to show that the borrowed funds had been diverted for making the investments, the proportionate disallowance of interest of Rs 301

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14A cannot be made. 7.3.3 In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court(supra) and in the absence of any evidence put forth by the A.O to show that the borrowed funds had been diverted for making the investments, the proportionate disallowance of interest of Rs 301

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14A cannot be made. 7.3.3 In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court(supra) and in the absence of any evidence put forth by the A.O to show that the borrowed funds had been diverted for making the investments, the proportionate disallowance of interest of Rs 301

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

disallowance.”\n30. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra), we allow ground\nnos.8 to 8.2.\n\n23\n31. With regard to Ground Nos.9 to 9.4 regarding income from trading in mutual\nfunds/shares treated as business income and not as long term/short term capital gain,\nld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :-\n“The appellant, as a consistent

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 41(1) may not be legally permissible to the Revenue. In the light of the discussions above, we do not agree with the stand of the Department that the amounts in question which are part of the inter branch transactions requires to be brought to tax as income of the assessee in the year in question.” 18. The above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 41(1) may not be legally permissible to the Revenue. In the light of the discussions above, we do not agree with the stand of the Department that the amounts in question which are part of the inter branch transactions requires to be brought to tax as income of the assessee in the year in question.” 18. The above