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

disallowance of Rs.3,74,06,800/- under section 35(1) and disallowance under section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.40

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 35(2AB) of the Act Disallowance w.r.t. deduction claimed under section 638,13,601 80G of the Act on account

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 under Section 35(2AA) for expenses incurred under CSR. 2. Legal Interpretation of CR Expenditure and Disallowance under Section

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 40(a)(ia) is a deterrent and a penal provision. It has the effect of penalizing the assessee, who has failed to deduct tax at source and acts to the detriment of the assessee's property and other economic interests. It operates and inflicts ~ hardship and deprivation, by disallowing expenditure actually incurred and treating it as disallowed. The Explanation

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

35 taxmann.com 638/217 Taxman 114/ [2014] 361ITR 192, where the facts were similar to those in the present case. The court therein rejected the Revenue's contention that non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement expenses would lead to disallowance of such reimbursement expenditure. The court noted that the payee therein had already deducted tax on the various payments made

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

35 taxmann.com 638/217 Taxman 114/ [2014] 361ITR 192, where the facts were similar to those in the present case. The court therein rejected the Revenue's contention that non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement expenses would lead to disallowance of such reimbursement expenditure. The court noted that the payee therein had already deducted tax on the various payments made

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

35 taxmann.com 638/217 Taxman 114/ [2014] 361ITR 192, where the facts were similar to those in the present case. The court therein rejected the Revenue's contention that non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement expenses would lead to disallowance of such reimbursement expenditure. The court noted that the payee therein had already deducted tax on the various payments made

BIO MED PRIVATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

section 35(2AB)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). ii. Disallowance of Rs.11,35,257/- under section

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

Disallowance under section 14A, as per Rule 8D. Facts: During the relevant previous year, the assessee company earned dividend/interest income of Rs. 15,11,45,290 from investments in shares, 30 bonds, and mutual funds, which was exempt under section 10(34)/l 0(35

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 under section 14A to the extent of exempted income of ₹ 35,09,948/-. As the assessee made sumo disallowance

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 under section 14A to the extent of exempted income of ₹ 35,09,948/-. As the assessee made sumo disallowance

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 under section 14A to the extent of exempted income of ₹ 35,09,948/-. As the assessee made sumo disallowance

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 under section 14A to the extent of exempted income of ₹ 35,09,948/-. As the assessee made sumo disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

section 35(2AB) of the Act (iii) Additional deduction at 50 percent Rs.9,00,85,719 in respect of revenue expenditure Total Rs.89,56,61,072 In the assessment order, the assessing officer disallowed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

section 35(2AB) of the Act (iii) Additional deduction at 50 percent Rs.9,00,85,719 in respect of revenue expenditure Total Rs.89,56,61,072 In the assessment order, the assessing officer disallowed

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S V E COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

section 35(2AB) of the Act (iii) Additional deduction at 50 percent Rs.9,00,85,719 in respect of revenue expenditure Total Rs.89,56,61,072 In the assessment order, the assessing officer disallowed

ALP OVERSEAS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Alp Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25/3, Anbrose House, Central Circle -20, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pin 1100 08 Pan No. Aaacg6366L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of revenue expenditure under Section 35(2AB) is, in fact, also eligible for a business deduction under Section 35

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia), where tax has not been deducted on account of bonafide belief. 35. Further, without