TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act: - ..................................................................... 16 Commuted/discounted one-time lease rent: - ....................................................................... 25 Conclusion: - ............................................................................................................................ 33 2021:DHC:1941-DB ITA 213-215/2020

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act: - ..................................................................... 16 Commuted/discounted one-time lease rent: - ....................................................................... 25 Conclusion: - ............................................................................................................................ 33 2021:DHC:1941-DB ITA 213-215/2020

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 shall still be applicable, even though such known income is not relatable to the relevant assessment year. 33. In case of shares, it will, however, kindly be appreciated that there is complete uncertainty as to whether or not any amount/ income (be it dividend or capital gains) arise at all at a later date

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of interest on compulsory convertible debentures subscribed by its holding Company i.e. Religare Enterprises Ltd interest for the A.Y 2014-15, wherein the CIT(A) has taken into account of the order passed by its predecessor for the Assessment year 2012-13 and taken a contrary view, which requires no interference. 31. Per contra, the ld. Assessee's Representative

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of interest on compulsory convertible debentures subscribed by its holding Company i.e. Religare Enterprises Ltd interest for the A.Y 2014-15, wherein the CIT(A) has taken into account of the order passed by its predecessor for the Assessment year 2012-13 and taken a contrary view, which requires no interference. 31. Per contra, the ld. Assessee's Representative

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of interest on compulsory convertible debentures subscribed by its holding Company i.e. Religare Enterprises Ltd interest for the A.Y 2014-15, wherein the CIT(A) has taken into account of the order passed by its predecessor for the Assessment year 2012-13 and taken a contrary view, which requires no interference. 31. Per contra, the ld. Assessee's Representative

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of interest on compulsory convertible debentures subscribed by its holding Company i.e. Religare Enterprises Ltd interest for the A.Y 2014-15, wherein the CIT(A) has taken into account of the order passed by its predecessor for the Assessment year 2012-13 and taken a contrary view, which requires no interference. 31. Per contra, the ld. Assessee's Representative

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of interest on compulsory convertible debentures subscribed by its holding Company i.e. Religare Enterprises Ltd interest for the A.Y 2014-15, wherein the CIT(A) has taken into account of the order passed by its predecessor for the Assessment year 2012-13 and taken a contrary view, which requires no interference. 31. Per contra, the ld. Assessee's Representative

ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of interest on compulsory convertible debentures subscribed by its holding Company i.e. Religare Enterprises Ltd interest for the A.Y 2014-15, wherein the CIT(A) has taken into account of the order passed by its predecessor for the Assessment year 2012-13 and taken a contrary view, which requires no interference. 31. Per contra, the ld. Assessee's Representative

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of interest on compulsory convertible debentures subscribed by its holding Company i.e. Religare Enterprises Ltd interest for the A.Y 2014-15, wherein the CIT(A) has taken into account of the order passed by its predecessor for the Assessment year 2012-13 and taken a contrary view, which requires no interference. 31. Per contra, the ld. Assessee's Representative

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]

Disallowance of donation under section 80G of the Act [CIT(A) Order - Para 8 to 8.3.12, Page 33-47; AO Order

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

33 of 38 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. If he is satisfied that

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

33 of 38 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. If he is satisfied that

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

33 of 38 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. If he is satisfied that

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

33 of 38 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. If he is satisfied that

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

33 of 38 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. If he is satisfied that

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

33 of 38 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. If he is satisfied that

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

33 of 38 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. If he is satisfied that