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 the context otherwise requires— ITA No.316/Del/2013 (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person

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 the context otherwise requires— ITA No.316/Del/2013 (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person

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)

6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, sum of Rs. 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

PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance u/s. 68 actually comes to RS. 10,46,00,000/-. In appeal filed by the Assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of RS. 1,10,00,000/- in respect of I World Business Solutions 2 Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 15,00,000/- in respect of KG Embroidery Mills Ltd. vide order dated 28.6.2017. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance u/s. 68 actually comes to RS. 10,46,00,000/-. In appeal filed by the Assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of RS. 1,10,00,000/- in respect of I World Business Solutions 2 Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 15,00,000/- in respect of KG Embroidery Mills Ltd. vide order dated 28.6.2017. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action

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

6,70,864 on account of reimbursement of actual expenses towards conveyance, air fare, out of pocket expenses, taxi charges, lodging etc. incurred and claimed by various persons on cost to cost basis. Details of expenses reimbursed alongwith copies of sample vouchers alongwith supporting evidencing are enclosed at pages 209-288 of PB on Merits. It is submitted that

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

43,88,624/- was claimed under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”]. 3.1. The assessment concerning the appellant/assessee was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. An order to that effect was passed on 30.12.2010, wherein the appellant/assessee‟s taxable income was assessed at Rs. 36,28,88,570/-. The assessing officer [in short

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

43,88,624/- was claimed under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”]. 3.1. The assessment concerning the appellant/assessee was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. An order to that effect was passed on 30.12.2010, wherein the appellant/assessee‟s taxable income was assessed at Rs. 36,28,88,570/-. The assessing officer [in short

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

43,88,624/- was claimed under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”]. 3.1. The assessment concerning the appellant/assessee was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. An order to that effect was passed on 30.12.2010, wherein the appellant/assessee‟s taxable income was assessed at Rs. 36,28,88,570/-. The assessing officer [in short

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Section 43 A with effect fro 1.4.2003 is prospective. There is no scope for entertaining the Revenue’s plea to the contrary. 47. In view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law that arises in these appeals is answered in affirmative by holding that the increase in liability due to foreign exchange fluctuation as per the exchange rate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Section 43 A with effect fro 1.4.2003 is prospective. There is no scope for entertaining the Revenue’s plea to the contrary. 47. In view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law that arises in these appeals is answered in affirmative by holding that the increase in liability due to foreign exchange fluctuation as per the exchange rate

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

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

43,08,839 under section 1l5JB of the Act. Re: Transfer Pricing Adjustment under section 92CA relating to inter unit transfer 2. That the assessing officer/ Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) erred on facts and in law in partly disallowing claim of deduction under section 80IC to the extent of Rs.2,20,89,180 by reducing profits of the eligible undertaking

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

section 14A of the Act deleted by Ld CIT(A). Thus, both, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed. 11. The ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue and additional ground No.4 of the appeal of the assessee are related to disallowance on account of provision for expenses. 11.1 Brief facts

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

section 14A of the Act deleted by Ld CIT(A). Thus, both, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed. 11. The ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue and additional ground No.4 of the appeal of the assessee are related to disallowance on account of provision for expenses. 11.1 Brief facts

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

section 14A of the Act deleted by Ld CIT(A). Thus, both, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed. 11. The ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue and additional ground No.4 of the appeal of the assessee are related to disallowance on account of provision for expenses. 11.1 Brief facts

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

section 14A of the Act deleted by Ld CIT(A). Thus, both, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed. 11. The ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue and additional ground No.4 of the appeal of the assessee are related to disallowance on account of provision for expenses. 11.1 Brief facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowing depreciation, which is common to all the appeals in hand, it can be observed from the orders of the tax authorities below that the ld AO has reached the conclusion within the scope of provision of section 47 clause (iv), section 43(1) r/w explanation 6

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowing depreciation, which is common to all the appeals in hand, it can be observed from the orders of the tax authorities below that the ld AO has reached the conclusion within the scope of provision of section 47 clause (iv), section 43(1) r/w explanation 6