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.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,61,93,391

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.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,61,93,391

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.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,61,93,391

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.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,61,93,391

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.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,61,93,391

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.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,61,93,391

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.

sections 36(2) /36(l)(vii)/ 28 of the Act.” 9 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2.6. I.T.A. No. 133/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Department) “ On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,61,93,391

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowance of Rs.212,15,413 under section l4A read with Rule 8D of the Rules in computing book profit under section 115J8 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in allowing claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs.17,12,04,096 under section

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]

391, dismissed the SLP of the Department against order of High Court that where assessee-company failed to pay employees' contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date prescribed in respective Acts, deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not allowable. Recently in the case of Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda v. Asstt. DIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 420/199 ITD 28 (Bang

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 6.11. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act is incorrect since while

S.C., JOHNSON PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

disallowance made by the Ld. AO in\nrelation to the salary expenditure of expatriates amounting to Rs.\n3,45,62,000/- pertaining to year under consideration merely on\nalleged ground that the debit notes were received in the subsequent\nFY 2006-07.\n\n2.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and fact in holding that under the\nmercantile

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

disallowed by the authorities below. Even otherwise the issue raised by the Assessee, requires following determinations: 1. Whether Seconded employees were of the Assessee or the holding company. 2. Nature of payment for FTC or salary 26 Serco India Pvt. Ltd. 3. TDS was required to be deducted under section 192 or 195. 4. TDS in section

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Disallowance of interest decapitalisation [ Ground no 3 of appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] 30. In appeals of the assessee, Ground number 1 for assessment year 2007 – 08 and ground number 1 and 2 for assessment year 2008 – 09 are challenging the various additions/adjustment made by the learned assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer which are also independently challenged

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Disallowance of interest decapitalisation [ Ground no 3 of appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] 30. In appeals of the assessee, Ground number 1 for assessment year 2007 – 08 and ground number 1 and 2 for assessment year 2008 – 09 are challenging the various additions/adjustment made by the learned assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer which are also independently challenged

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of ‘Provision of revision of pay’, I find that in the current Financial Year, no decision of the Central Govt. was available, which may have a bearing on revision of pay of executives of the appellant company, therefore, it cannot be held that such liability had crystallized in the current year. For the Central Govt. Ministries and Departments

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of ‘Provision of revision of pay’, I find that in the current Financial Year, no decision of the Central Govt. was available, which may have a bearing on revision of pay of executives of the appellant company, therefore, it cannot be held that such liability had crystallized in the current year. For the Central Govt. Ministries and Departments

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

disallowed tax depreciation of Rs.1344,19,48,510/- alleging that the transfer of PIAs from the OpCos to the TowerCos was not in the nature of 'gift' and therefore, held that the benefit under section 47(iii) or Explanation 2 of section 43(1) of the Act cannot be taken to determine the actual cost/ tax WDV in the hands

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

disallowed tax depreciation of Rs.1344,19,48,510/- alleging that the transfer of PIAs from the OpCos to the TowerCos was not in the nature of 'gift' and therefore, held that the benefit under section 47(iii) or Explanation 2 of section 43(1) of the Act cannot be taken to determine the actual cost/ tax WDV in the hands