HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered by the assessee on account of commercial expediency and when the recipients had paid tax on payments received from the assessee company, disallowance could not be made by applying provisions of section 40A

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered by the assessee on account of commercial expediency and when the recipients had paid tax on payments received from the assessee company, disallowance could not be made by applying provisions of section 40A

KEC DELCO DUSTAN (JV),GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y..: 2015-16

2 Paid to the JV partner (1,28,81,117) 3 Other Expenses 11,236 4 Profit/(Loss) (29,295) 14. I find the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure @ 4% of the total expenses incurred towards KEC International Ltd. by invoking the provisions of section 40A

KEC TRIVENI KPIPL (JV),GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y..: 2015-16

2 Paid to the JV partner (1,28,81,117) 3 Other Expenses 11,236 4 Profit/(Loss) (29,295) 14. I find the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure @ 4% of the total expenses incurred towards KEC International Ltd. by invoking the provisions of section 40A

KEC SIDHARTH (JV),GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y..: 2015-16

2 Paid to the JV partner (1,28,81,117) 3 Other Expenses 11,236 4 Profit/(Loss) (29,295) 14. I find the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure @ 4% of the total expenses incurred towards KEC International Ltd. by invoking the provisions of section 40A

KEC-VARAHA-KHAZANA (JV),GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y..: 2015-16

2 Paid to the JV partner (1,28,81,117) 3 Other Expenses 11,236 4 Profit/(Loss) (29,295) 14. I find the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure @ 4% of the total expenses incurred towards KEC International Ltd. by invoking the provisions of section 40A

. AMSERVE CONSULTANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2009-10

40A(2). vi. That the assessee otherwise to having let evidence to establish the fair market value of database obtained was at arm’s length (TP report) no disallowance is permissible in law. The disallowance thus made on ad-hoc basis is highly arbitrary. vii. No disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section

DE DIAMOND ELECTRIC INDIA PVT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE - 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

2)(b) of the Act in absence of requirement of law. If the expenses are not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business, then disallowance could be made under section 37(1) of the Act. For invoking the provision of section 40A

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

2 to Sub-section (5) also refers to cash payment but that too is not to the employee, though undoubtedly for his benefit. 9. For the above reasons, we hold that cash payments by an assessee to his/its employees do not fall within the ambit of Section 40(a)(v) or Section 40A

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

2 to Sub-section (5) also refers to cash payment but that too is not to the employee, though undoubtedly for his benefit. 9. For the above reasons, we hold that cash payments by an assessee to his/its employees do not fall within the ambit of Section 40(a)(v) or Section 40A

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

2 to Sub-section (5) also refers to cash payment but that too is not to the employee, though undoubtedly for his benefit. 9. For the above reasons, we hold that cash payments by an assessee to his/its employees do not fall within the ambit of Section 40(a)(v) or Section 40A

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

2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered by the assessee on account of commercial expediency and when the recipients had paid tax on payments received from the assessee company, disallowance could not be made by applying provisions of section 40A

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

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

2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered by the appellant on account of commercial expediency and when the recipients had paid tax on payments received from the appellant company, disallowance could not be made by applying provisions of section 40A

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI PRESS SAMACHAR PATRA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b). The disallowance based on quantum of expenditure incurred rather than the fair market value

ITO WARD-27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNIVERSAL HEIGHTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 8125/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Universe Heights (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 5G/1, Everest 46C, Chowringee Ward-27(1), Road, Kolkata-700071 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu4605K

Section 40A(2)(a), disallowed the excessive interest charged at the rate of 12% and hence, made a disallowance of Rs 4,48,39,232/-. 17. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted

UNIVERSE HEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 27(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 8125/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Universe Heights (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 5G/1, Everest 46C, Chowringee Ward-27(1), Road, Kolkata-700071 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu4605K

Section 40A(2)(a), disallowed the excessive interest charged at the rate of 12% and hence, made a disallowance of Rs 4,48,39,232/-. 17. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted

M/S. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-15(1), New Delhi Religare Finvest Ltd., D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan : Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 28.02.2013, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

2,499,997 14Aof the Act 3. Disallowance of processing fee paid to 9,333,953 banks under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non deduction of tax at source Expenses disallowed under section 4. 40A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowed by the assessing officer under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, alleging that there was no DCIT V Xansa