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

section 14A and computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs.1,53,47,590/- as the appellant had disclosed dividend income (exempt) of Rs. 30,32,862/- The AO computed the disallowance by taking 0.5% of average value investment as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), and after allowing credit of Rs. 36,50,000/- disallowed by 24 PTC India

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

section 14A and computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs.1,53,47,590/- as the appellant had disclosed dividend income (exempt) of Rs. 30,32,862/- The AO computed the disallowance by taking 0.5% of average value investment as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), and after allowing credit of Rs. 36,50,000/- disallowed by 24 PTC India

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

32,177/- on account of delay in contribution to the Provident Fund / ESIC is liable to be deleted. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Similar facts and grounds of appeal

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

32(1)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal has also categorically given a finding that the decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance relating to the period prior to the Assessment Year 1988-89 when the Explanation (1) to Section

HALDIA COKE AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Haldia Code & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, No.18/3, Sigapi Achi Building, Circle-11(1), 4Th Floor, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Road, New Delhi. Egmore, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600 004. Pan: Aabch5389P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2023 Order

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and without prejudice to the above, justify the interest payment u/s 36(1)(iii). Assessee responded that assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies; that investment in mutual funds of Rs.3,00,000/- has also been done; that assessee has not received any dividend income during

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

iii) where the assessee— (a) has furnished his return of income under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 148, and a notice under sub- section (2) of section 143 has been issued by the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority

HALDIA COKE AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 11, NEW DELHI

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and without prejudice to the above, justify the interest payment u/s 36(1)(iii). Assessee responded that assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies; that investment in mutual funds of Rs.3,00,000/- has also been done; that assessee has not received any dividend income during

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of income would not arise. In other words, once\nthe registration is withdrawn, then the expression provided in Section\n13(1)(c) of the Act that such part of the diverted income shall get\ntaxed becomes otiose. That situation would never arise since the entire\nexemption would be denied once the registration is cancelled. Hence we\nare convinced that

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

1)(iii) of the Act 3. Disallowance of foreign exchange loss 7 98 24 636/- u/s 43A of the Act 4. Disallowance of proportionate 17 67 88 271/- depreciation u/s 32 of the Act 5. Disallowance of proportionate 2 36 12 51 643/- depreciation u/s 32 of the Act Total 9,59,11,18,274/- 3. Against the order

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

32,90,205] Total disallowance 164.78 Less: Suo moto disallowance made in the return 67.03 Net disallowance made in the assessment order 97.75 The assessing officer has alternately proposed to disallow interest expenditure to the extent of Rs.31.84 lacs under section 36(l)(iii) and amount of Rs. 65.91 lacs [132.94 -67.03], being half percent of average investment, under section