DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

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

32 of38 0 0 0 0 0 42. Thus, the fact that we have held that sub-sections (2) & (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D would operate prospectively (and, not retrospectively) does not mean that the assessing officer is not to satisfy himself with the correctness of the claim of the assessee with regard to such expenditure

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of38 2011:DHC:13239-DB 0 0 0 0 0 42. Thus, the fact that we have held that sub-sections (2) & (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D would operate prospectively (and, not retrospectively) does not mean that the assessing officer is not to satisfy himself with the correctness of the claim of the assessee with regard

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

CHEMINVEST LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

EICHER LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ICRA LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL PEROT SYSTMES LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

EICHER LTD. vs. COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ICRA LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

MAXPAK INVESTMENT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

32 of 38 40. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in effect, the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A would be workable only with effect from the date of introduction of Rule 8D. This is so because prior to that date, there was no prescribed method and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section