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

1)(viii) and disallowance of Rs. 9,69,602/- under section 37 aggregating in all to Rs. 24,71,35,045/-. 5. The Ld. AO completed

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

1)(viii) and disallowance of Rs. 9,69,602/- under section 37 aggregating in all to Rs. 24,71,35,045/-. 5. The Ld. AO completed

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]

disallowance in terms of section 143(1) of the Act. 18. Regarding the alternate argument of the Counsel for the assessee that the claim of the assessee is allowable under Section 37

M/S. LUCKY EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

disallowed same. Commissioner (Appeals) noted that amount did not qualify as bad debt because it was an advance paid for acquisition of capital asset. However, amount was a loss to assessee and would be an allowable expenditure under section 37(1

AKSHAY KHETTERPAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 41(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryakshaykhetterpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Surindermahajan& Circle-41(1), Associates, A-134, Defence New Delhi Colony, New Delhi Pan: Bhupk0131J (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Addition confirmed is illegal and bad in law. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming that fine and penalty paid by the Assessee amounting to Rs. 65,61,700/- is to be disallowed in view of explanation to section 37

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]

37(1) and the legislative intent to disallow CSR-related tax benefits. Issue in brief as per AO: 1. Disallowance of Deduction Under Section

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

disallowance was unjustified. Revenue's Position: 1. Admissibility of "Gifts" as Business Expenditure Under Section 37: Section 37(1) of the Act provides

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

disallowance was unjustified. Revenue's Position: 1. Admissibility of "Gifts" as Business Expenditure Under Section 37: Section 37(1) of the Act provides

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

disallowance was unjustified. Revenue's Position: 1. Admissibility of "Gifts" as Business Expenditure Under Section 37: Section 37(1) of the Act provides

SURENDER KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1045/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Surender Kumar, Vs Adit, M Sahu & Associates, Ca, House No. Cpc, 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Near Union Bangalore Bank Of India, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agupk6911C Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022

disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) being part of salary and legitimate expenditure and revenue in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business accordingly the same may be allowed under the residuary section 37

FARIDABAD SERVICE STATION,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-30(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed of Rs.1,37,852/- for assessment year under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Act. 55. Section 40A(2) clause (b) is a provision for computing arm‘s length

ASHIRWAD CARBONICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE-3(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed of Rs. 6,37,273/- for assessment year 2019-20 under section 36(1)(va) of the Income

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is uncalled for, based on surmises and conjectures and bad in law.” 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that in all these assessment years while processing the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act disallowance

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is uncalled for, based on surmises and conjectures and bad in law.” 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that in all these assessment years while processing the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act disallowance

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

1 )(iii). 14A comes last in the sequence of disallowance of expense. Expenses allowable under sections 29 to 37 may get hit by section

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the Ld. assessing officer. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The issue involved before us is that assessee has paid a commission expenditure to a German National without deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, whether such commission expenditure

NALWA STEEL POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

37(1) which has been introduced with effect from 01.04.2015 cannot be construed as to disadvantage to the assessee in the period prior to the amendment. In the course of assessee’s business deductions are not allowed in the computation of income. This disallowance is restricted to the expenses incurred by the assessee under a statutory obligation under section