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

5, 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

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

5, 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

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

5, 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

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)

40a (ia} is required to be applied and no disallowance is called for to the extent sums are paid, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Vector Shinning Pvt. Ltd.: 357 ITR 642. In view of this above two directions, we set aside the issue to the file

M/S GALAXY DWELLERS (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal No. 5293/Del/2013 & I.T. Appeal No.3029/Del/2014 Assessment Years : 2006–2007 & 2007-08. M/S. Galaxy Dwellers (P) Ltd., Dy. Commissioner C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Vs. Of Income Tax, D–28, South Extension, Part–I, Central Circle : 4, N E W D E L H I – 110 049. New Delhi. Pan : Aaccg 3782 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

40A(3) and that too without considering the submissions/evidences of the assessee, more so when such disallowance could not have been made in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, impugned disallowance and impugned assessment order are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred by limitation, contrary to facts

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

40a(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS thereon. 11. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,70,864/- on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of legal & professional expenses for failure to deduct TDS. 12. Whether, on the facts and circumstances

SHAKTI SINGH GULIA,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO, WARD- 4, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance made under Section 40A(3), the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). It was submitted I.T.A No. 6115/Del/2018 & 4618/Del/2019 3 before the CIT(A) that the assessee is engaged in trading of country liquor where the Government issues license for trading. The distilleries who manufactures country liquor are also licensed and approved and monitored by the Government

SHAKTI SINGH GULIA,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO, WARD- 4, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance made under Section 40A(3), the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). It was submitted I.T.A No. 6115/Del/2018 & 4618/Del/2019 3 before the CIT(A) that the assessee is engaged in trading of country liquor where the Government issues license for trading. The distilleries who manufactures country liquor are also licensed and approved and monitored by the Government

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VRV BREWERIES & BOTTELING

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

disallowed partially that is to the extent of 13/14th by taking ITA Nos. 594/2005, 646/2005 & 559/2006 Page 27 of 32 recourse to section 35A. Sub-section (1) of Section 35A requires broadly three (3) conditionalities to be fulfilled for it to be triggered:- (i) the expenditure ought to have been incurred after 28.02.1966; (ii) the expenditure should be related

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S V.R.V. BREWERIES & BOTTELI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

disallowed partially that is to the extent of 13/14th by taking ITA Nos. 594/2005, 646/2005 & 559/2006 Page 27 of 32 recourse to section 35A. Sub-section (1) of Section 35A requires broadly three (3) conditionalities to be fulfilled for it to be triggered:- (i) the expenditure ought to have been incurred after 28.02.1966; (ii) the expenditure should be related

KEDAR NATH SAWHNEY ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

5 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.88,71,511/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. He submitted that the AO has considered the payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- per day for making disallowance

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

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

5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing various expenses to the extent of Rs. 11,69,14,125, which pertained to services availed from vendors in the immediately preceding year, and were claimed as deduction during the year under consideration, since bills for such expenses were received or liabilities were recognized during the year

J.D. WINES,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

section as per proviso to Sec 40A(3). (b) Without prejudice to above the appellant disputes that the quantum of addition confirmed is on higher side. 4.(a) That the ld CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the ground of appeal regarding disallowance of depreciation of Rs.71850/- on Motor Lorry due to difference in cost price amounting to Rs.239500

NIKHIL JAIN (L/H OF BEENA JAIN),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-31(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nikhil Jain Vs Acit, (L/H Of Beena Jain), Circle-31(1), H-41, Green Park Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aagpj1088H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate & Shri Puneet Rai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2021 Order

section 40A(3) of the IT Act. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.57,800/- for violations

M/S. PEARL POLYMERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Deputy M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., 204, Commissioner Of Rohit House, 3, Tolstoy Marg, Income Tax, Circle-14(1), New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaacp0182F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/09/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: “1.0 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.4.45.076/- U/S.40A(3Ijof The Income-Tax Act, On Wholly Untenable Grounds. 1.1 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Circumstances Under Which The Cash Payment Exceeding The Prescribed Limit U/S.40A(3) Had To Be Made By The Assessee, Although The Payees Were Fully Identified & Even Tds Has Been Made. 1.2 That The Disallowance Made U/S.40A(3) Is Bad In Law.

section 40A of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute and dismiss the grounds No. 1.0 to 1.2 of the appeal. 11 AY: 2009-10 5. In grounds No. 2.0 to 2.3, the assessee has challenged disallowance

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

5,35,468/- was incurred in cash for acquiring various fixed assets and the AO disallowed the depreciation on the same. He submitted that the expenditure towards the acquisition of capital assets has not been debited to the Profit and Loss account and thereby it has not been claimed as an expenditure. He submitted that the provisions of Section 40A

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

5,35,468/- was incurred in cash for acquiring various fixed assets and the AO disallowed the depreciation on the same. He submitted that the expenditure towards the acquisition of capital assets has not been debited to the Profit and Loss account and thereby it has not been claimed as an expenditure. He submitted that the provisions of Section 40A