DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE COMTRADE LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs M/S Religare Comtrade Ltd Circle-21(1), (Formerly Known As Religare New Delhi. Bullion Ltd.), D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aaecr8405P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) Under Section 250 (6) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds No.1 & 2 Raised By The Revenue Relate To The Same Issue Of Loss Incurred On Account Of Trading In Gold Derivatives Which Was Disallowed By The Ao Treating It As Speculative In Nature, In Terms Of Its Definition U/S 43(5) Of The Act, Which, However, Was Allowed By The Ld.Cit(A). The Said Grounds Read As Under:-

section 43(5) and it applies to the case of the assessee and the transaction is held to be not speculative in nature. It is also relevant to note here that despite the order of AY 2012-13, the AO has not made the disallowance

VINAY PRAKASH (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 43(5) of the Act. This being the position, the loss arising from derivative transaction has been incorrectly disallowed

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

5 Disallowance u/s 14A disallowance offered - Para 36-37 DRP: by the assessee. Page 16 Para 8.2 (In the present case also, the assessee has made suo moto disallowance and dissatisfaction of the AO is missing) The claim of business loss is covered under clause (d) of proviso to section 43

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)

5,05,47,21,495 representing free airtime given as discount/trade margin to the distributors on maximum retail price of prepaid coupons. 6.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that discount/trade margin given to the distributors on retail price of the prepaid products was in the nature of commission expense, on which

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

section 43(1) in various cases as held by Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. The AO after considering the legal position and facts and circumstances of the case and being unsatisfied with the explanation of the assessee, made disallowance of deprecation of Rs. 12,23,215/- and added it to the total income of the assessee. 5

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

section 43(1) in various cases as held by Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. The AO after considering the legal position and facts and circumstances of the case and being unsatisfied with the explanation of the assessee, made disallowance of deprecation of Rs. 12,23,215/- and added it to the total income of the assessee. 5

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

section 43(1) in various cases as held by Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. The AO after considering the legal position and facts and circumstances of the case and being unsatisfied with the explanation of the assessee, made disallowance of deprecation of Rs. 12,23,215/- and added it to the total income of the assessee. 5

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 43(1) in various cases as held by Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. The AO after considering the legal position and facts and circumstances of the case and being unsatisfied with the explanation of the assessee, made disallowance of deprecation of Rs. 12,23,215/- and added it to the total income of the assessee. 5

VISHNU KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 46(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2015-16 Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, 3762/64, Chawri Bazar, Ward-46(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aarpk3173D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 Order

43(5) of the Act. It was also contended by the assessee that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the benefit 2 of carried forward speculative business loss without going through the provisions of sections

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

43,97,77,650/- on 30/09/2009. After issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act dated 4/8/2009, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee’s income at Rs. 55,84,6,968/- after making following additions/disallowance: S. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1 Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) 5,68,856 2 Disallowances of Provision

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FLORA & FAUNA HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 43(5) of the LT. Act, which is clearly attracted in assessee's case.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee company is into the business of distribution of Alcoholic Liquor. Assessment was framed for AY 2009-10 at the loss of (-) Rs.2,08,52,679/- on Future & Option

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PETRONET LNG LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income

PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income

PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PETRONET LNG LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income

PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income