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

1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the three assessment years

M/S. AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 36(1)(iii) does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the result, the ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 19. Ground no. 4 of the appeal of the Assessee is regarding disallowance of expenses of Capital nature claimed as revenue expenditure. During the year under consideration, an invoice

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

35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- and Rs. 18,64,61,000/- on account of notional loss booked under the head foreign exchange loss

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- and Rs. 18,64,61,000/- on account of notional loss booked under the head foreign exchange loss

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

35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- and Rs. 18,64,61,000/- on account of notional loss booked under the head foreign exchange loss

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. 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

35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- and Rs. 18,64,61,000/- on account of notional loss booked under the head foreign exchange loss

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

35,30,367 and again he has chosen to disallow identical amount u/s.36(1 )(iii). 14A comes last in the sequence of disallowance of expense. Expenses allowable under sections

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

35,30,367 and again he has chosen to disallow identical amount u/s.36(1 )(iii). 14A comes last in the sequence of disallowance of expense. Expenses allowable under sections

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]

iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return

M/S. MENORA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

iii) of the I.T. Act and the balance will be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D.” 6. The assessee challenged the same before the ld CIT(A), who passed the order on 11.03.2016 confirming the above disallowance as under:- “{4.3.1} I have considered the submission of the appellant and the assessment order. Following facts have emerged

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MENORA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

iii) of the I.T. Act and the balance will be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D.” 6. The assessee challenged the same before the ld CIT(A), who passed the order on 11.03.2016 confirming the above disallowance as under:- “{4.3.1} I have considered the submission of the appellant and the assessment order. Following facts have emerged

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowing provisions thereof would be inapplicable. 23. As regards the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant would be liable to pay interest under Section 234A. However, with regard to levy of interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held that if the receipt of income by the appellant was of such

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

SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Deepti Agarwal, Vs Acit, C/O M/S Pra Taxindia, Circle-53(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aampa0573C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th July, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal No.1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:-

section 36(1)(iii), disallowed an amount of Rs.2,23,164/- on the ground that interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of asset for extension of existing business or profession prior to the asset put to business use shall not be allowed. 2 4. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) not only upheld the action of the Assessing

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

35,588/- any fund set up under the provisions of ESI Act, 1948 1,72,25,525/- Total 11,15,61,113/-. 2. That no additions u/s 36(1)(va) could be done, as per the mandate of u/s 143(1)(a), thus there wa no adherence of relevant section and therefore it is clear cut case of mistake

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

35,588/- any fund set up under the provisions of ESI Act, 1948 1,72,25,525/- Total 11,15,61,113/-. 2. That no additions u/s 36(1)(va) could be done, as per the mandate of u/s 143(1)(a), thus there wa no adherence of relevant section and therefore it is clear cut case of mistake

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