VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

Sections 206AB & 206CCA implying that the supplier has duly filed the return of income for the AY 2021-22 and hence the very pretext on which the disallowance has been made is not correct. The appellant has also submitted that the input tax credit claimed against these purchases already stand allowed proving that the supplier is regularly filing

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)

4 of 59 payments made, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for not deducting the tax at source and consequently, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not warranted. ii. The aforesaid principle has been upheld by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities

M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) vide para 3 of the order has erred in facts and also in law in confirming addition of Rs.2,47,75,170/- by disallowing legitimately claimed deduction u/s. 80-IA(4

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

d) any income which is deemed to be income under the twenty-first\nproviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or which is not excluded from the\ntotal income under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13; or\n(e) any income which is not excluded from the total income under clause\n(c) of sub-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

disallowed this claim on the following I. grounds: 1. No statutory' head for "reimbursement": The AO noted that the Income-tax Act does not contain a specific section allowing deduction of "reimbursement of expenses." Any expenditure must fall within Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal

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

disallowed this claim on the following I. grounds: 1. No statutory' head for "reimbursement": The AO noted that the Income-tax Act does not contain a specific section allowing deduction of "reimbursement of expenses." Any expenditure must fall within Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal

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

disallowed this claim on the following I. grounds: 1. No statutory' head for "reimbursement": The AO noted that the Income-tax Act does not contain a specific section allowing deduction of "reimbursement of expenses." Any expenditure must fall within Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal

BSC C&C JV,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.705/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Bsc C&C Jv Assessing Officer, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Vs. National E-Assessment New Delhi. Centre, Delhi. Pan No. Aadfb8115G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.04.2021 passed by National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi for the AY 2016-17 u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B pursuant to the directions of the DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 08.03.2021. The assessee

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

D. Disallowance=A*B/C 31.84 (iii) ½% of average value of 132.94 investments [0.5%x3,32,90,205] Total disallowance 164.78 Less: Suo moto disallowance made in the return 67.03 Net disallowance made in the assessment order 97.75 The assessing officer has alternately proposed to disallow interest expenditure to the extent of Rs.31.84 lacs under section 36(l)(iii) and amount

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 16.01.2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in pursuance to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) pertaining to the Assessment Year

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) erred in not allowing the benefit of +/- 5 % range, as provided in the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. 5. That on facts and in law and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of I AO in making a disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) erred in not allowing the benefit of +/- 5 % range, as provided in the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. 5. That on facts and in law and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of I AO in making a disallowance

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under section 80IA(4) made in its revised return against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 8.1 The Ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance Rs. 4,83,994/- was not justified. b] Photocopy of the purchase invoice for an addition held amounting to Rs. 8,59,640/- in the relevant Asstt. Year. 12. a] Copy of Profit & Loss Account for the ending 31/03/08 and Balance Sheet as on that of Swaran Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. to prove that Reserve & Surplus were amounting

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KALRA PAPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowed by the AO to 10%. 7. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 8. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal raised above

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

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record

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

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record

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

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record