DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, 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

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

4 to 7 of grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.1,01,87,884/- made by the AO/TPO on account of interest receivables on advance given to I.T.A.No.705/Del/2021 M/s BSE C&C JV Nepal Pvt. Ltd. and TP Adjustment of Rs.37,71,124/- on account of interest paid

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

41 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Bhushan Steel Ltd.: ITA No. 593/2015, dated 29.09.2015, wherein, the Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could not be added while computing book profits as per section 115JB

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

4. The Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on total income of Rs. 1,53,74,00,120/- on 19.01.2016 for AY 2013-14 including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- on investment made in windmills; disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- being notional loss

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

4. The Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on total income of Rs. 1,53,74,00,120/- on 19.01.2016 for AY 2013-14 including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- on investment made in windmills; disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- being notional loss

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

4. The Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on total income of Rs. 1,53,74,00,120/- on 19.01.2016 for AY 2013-14 including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- on investment made in windmills; disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- being notional loss

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

4. The Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on total income of Rs. 1,53,74,00,120/- on 19.01.2016 for AY 2013-14 including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 57,05,766/- on investment made in windmills; disallowance of Rs. 20,54,47,894/- being notional loss

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

41, Noida\nb) The Sriram Millennium School, Sector 135, Noida and\nc) The Millennium School, Meerut\n4. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was\nconducted on 11-07-2023 in the case of PTC group companies. A\nconsequential search was also carried out in the case of the Assessee Society.\nThe claim of the Assessee

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

Disallowance of expenses under section Rs. 38,91,45,842/- 40(a)(ia) and Education Cess (Rs. 38,34,16,688/- + Rs. 57,29,154/-)  Adjustment, after giving effect to direction of Rs. 41,72,717/- Ld. DRP to the order of TPO 4

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 G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

section 80IA were fulfilled for Sonbarsa Project and SH-83 Project even though the assessee had offered to do so. None-the-less the fact remains that copy of agreement for these two projects were submitted before the Ld. AO. If he wanted, he could have gone into further details but the Ld. AO chose not to do so. Therefore

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

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

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

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

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

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under Section 14A of the said Act. It is, therefore, clear that in terms of the said Rule, the amount of expenditure in relation to exempt income has two aspects – (a) direct and (b) indirect. The direct expenditure is straightaway taken into account by virtue of clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D. The indirect expenditure, where