M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance accordingly. 9 Section 43(1) reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance accordingly. 9 Section 43(1) reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless

SURENDER KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1045/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Surender Kumar, Vs Adit, M Sahu & Associates, Ca, House No. Cpc, 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Near Union Bangalore Bank Of India, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agupk6911C Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

43(1)[here in after referred as intimation] by Dy.CIT, CPC, Bangalore [here in after referred as AO] by making adjustments without following the mandatory procedures as under: (i) Neither any intimation nor any show cause notice was issued as specified in Proviso 1 to Section 143(1) before making such adjustments; (ii). Adjustments are made without passing a judicious

FARIDABAD SERVICE STATION,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-30(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

HANS RUBBER & SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MEERUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

VHS ENTERPRISES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

VHS ENTERPRISES ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

PUSHPA SHARMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

RAMA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

ASHIRWAD CARBONICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE-3(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

FLYING FABRICATION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Flying Fabrication, Vs. Income Tax Officer, The Tax Chambers Advocates Ward-1(4) & Legal Advisors, C-177, Gurgaon Defence Colony, Lgf, New Delhi Pan :Aadff9825H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

RAJAN BANQUET PVT.LTD.,MORADABAD vs. ACIT-1, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

UNITED COFFEE HOUSE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-52(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. United Coffee House, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-15, Connaught Place, Ward-52(4), Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaafu1260G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

RSG SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

SONA FASHIONS INC,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Memberassessment Year: 2018-19 Sona Fashions Inc. Vs. Ito, H 9, Mohan Coop. Industrial Ward-29(5), Estate, B1, Mathura Road, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi Pan :Aacfs7353L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

RAVINDRA NATH SAHNI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CPC, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1784/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ravindra Nath Saini, Vs Acit, 51, Pashim Marg, Vsant Vihar, Cpc, New Delhi-110057 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjps2875D Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Batra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

STEEL BIRD INTERNATIONAL,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 63, NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs Jcit, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs7296K Assessee By : Sh. Vikas Katyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section