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

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

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

7. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing purchases to the extent of Rs. 39.90 crores (Rs. 16.38 crores from multiple source purchases and Rs.23.52 crores with respect to single source purchases) made from certain parties related with the appellant, in terms of Accounting Standard 18 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

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

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

disallowed by virtue of Section 40A(3) of the Act because the same were made in cash. 30. Section 40A(3) of the Act as in force during the AYs 1992-93 and 1993-94 reads as under:- “(3) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment is made, after such date (not being later than

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)

7. Further, with regard to the other arguments of the learned Counsel for the assessee, it was submitted by the learned CIT-DR that disallowance under section 40A

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 under Section 40A(3) is not proper when due weightage is given to the totality of the circumstances and considerations of business expediency existing in the present case as contemplated in Section 40A(3A) of the Act and mere removal of clause (j) to Rule 6DD from Assessment Year 1996-97 by itself I.T.A No. 6115/Del/2018 & 4618/Del/2019 7

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 under Section 40A(3) is not proper when due weightage is given to the totality of the circumstances and considerations of business expediency existing in the present case as contemplated in Section 40A(3A) of the Act and mere removal of clause (j) to Rule 6DD from Assessment Year 1996-97 by itself I.T.A No. 6115/Del/2018 & 4618/Del/2019 7

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

40a(is) vide the Finance Act 2014, w.e.f. 01.04.2015 thereby reducing the disallowance on no-deduction of TDS on payment to resident from 100% of expenditure to 30%, is curative in nature and hence applicable retrospectively. Further, we place reliance on decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of NeenaKaul v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No.1386

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

40a(is) vide the Finance Act 2014, w.e.f. 01.04.2015 thereby reducing the disallowance on no-deduction of TDS on payment to resident from 100% of expenditure to 30%, is curative in nature and hence applicable retrospectively. Further, we place reliance on decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of NeenaKaul v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No.1386

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

40a(is) vide the Finance Act 2014, w.e.f. 01.04.2015 thereby reducing the disallowance on no-deduction of TDS on payment to resident from 100% of expenditure to 30%, is curative in nature and hence applicable retrospectively. Further, we place reliance on decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of NeenaKaul v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No.1386

HONDA INDIA POWER PRODUCTS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

7) instead of section 43B of the Act. The CPC while processing the return, however, has captured the information on disallowance under section 43B reported in the Tax Audit Report on standalone basis and carried out adjustment under section 43B towards provision for gratuity disregarding the disallowance already carried out by assessee under section 40A

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

7. The Assessing Officer, however, disagreed with the explanation rendered by the assessee as according to him, this was a case of ITA Nos. 594/2005, 646/2005 & 559/2006 Page 11 of 32 „transfer of income‟ having been undertaken by employing a device of setting up a separate entity. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the day-to-day management

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

7. The Assessing Officer, however, disagreed with the explanation rendered by the assessee as according to him, this was a case of ITA Nos. 594/2005, 646/2005 & 559/2006 Page 11 of 32 „transfer of income‟ having been undertaken by employing a device of setting up a separate entity. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the day-to-day management

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:

Section 40A(3) 8. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. and subsequently CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee has made cash payments to various concern which are to be disallowed U/s 40A(3) of the Act. 9. That, in view

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:

Section 40A(3) 8. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. and subsequently CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee has made cash payments to various concern which are to be disallowed U/s 40A(3) of the Act. 9. That, in view

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

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.

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank

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) only empowers the AO to disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by 7

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

7. Now, coming to Section 40A(5), the position is no different. It would, however, be appropriate to point out the distinction between Section 40(a)(v) and Section 40A(5). We shall refer to the former provision as "sub- clause " and the latter provision as "sub-section ". The sub-section is wider in its scope and application than