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

47,91,500 TDS deducted under section 194J Professional fees The tax auditor in its tax audit report under clause 17(f) read with annexure VI of the Form 3CD, mentioned that Rs. 1,58,365/- the amount paid to professional was inadmissible under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee suo-moto disallowed

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

47,91,500 TDS deducted under section 194J Professional fees The tax auditor in its tax audit report under clause 17(f) read with annexure VI of the Form 3CD, mentioned that Rs. 1,58,365/- the amount paid to professional was inadmissible under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee suo-moto disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

47(iv) of the Act and hence not chargeable to tax. 6. That the assessing officer while doing the assessment under section 143(3) has disallowed

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

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. After reducing therefrom suo-moto disallowance of Rs.36,50,000/-, the Ld. AO disallowed Rs.1,16,97,590/-. 31.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned disallowance of Rs. 1,53,47

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

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. After reducing therefrom suo-moto disallowance of Rs.36,50,000/-, the Ld. AO disallowed Rs.1,16,97,590/-. 31.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned disallowance of Rs. 1,53,47

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

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. After reducing therefrom suo-moto disallowance of Rs.36,50,000/-, the Ld. AO disallowed Rs.1,16,97,590/-. 31.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned disallowance of Rs. 1,53,47

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

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. After reducing therefrom suo-moto disallowance of Rs.36,50,000/-, the Ld. AO disallowed Rs.1,16,97,590/-. 31.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned disallowance of Rs. 1,53,47

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

section 115JB falling under Chapter XII-B of the Act. Covered in favour of the assessee by order passed by the IT ATfor AY 2015- 16 It would further be appreciated that similar addition made by the assessing officer in the assessment year, viz., AY 2015-16 was deleted by the Tribunal vide recent order dated 14.04.2021 by relying

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

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

disallowance made in the assessment order under section 14A of the Act calls for being deleted. 47. He further submitted

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 allowable expenses for the year = (3509948/973248925)/672173271 = 2424142 3.3 The Assessing Officer did not accept the above working of the disallowance by the assessee due to two reasons. Firstly, the interest cost has not been taken into consideration while allocating the expenses towards exempted income. Secondly, the funds generating tax-free income

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 allowable expenses for the year = (3509948/973248925)/672173271 = 2424142 3.3 The Assessing Officer did not accept the above working of the disallowance by the assessee due to two reasons. Firstly, the interest cost has not been taken into consideration while allocating the expenses towards exempted income. Secondly, the funds generating tax-free income

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 allowable expenses for the year = (3509948/973248925)/672173271 = 2424142 3.3 The Assessing Officer did not accept the above working of the disallowance by the assessee due to two reasons. Firstly, the interest cost has not been taken into consideration while allocating the expenses towards exempted income. Secondly, the funds generating tax-free income

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 allowable expenses for the year = (3509948/973248925)/672173271 = 2424142 3.3 The Assessing Officer did not accept the above working of the disallowance by the assessee due to two reasons. Firstly, the interest cost has not been taken into consideration while allocating the expenses towards exempted income. Secondly, the funds generating tax-free income

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

disallowing amount of Rs. 1,47,34,700 on account of provision made towards commission paid on institutional sales to dealers, on the ground that the assessee failed to deduct tax at source under section

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

47) (vi) read with Explanation 1 thereto of the Act which defines 'transfer' and read it along with the definition of 'immovable property' under 269 UA (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act and the word 'transfer' in Section 269 UA (f) (i). He submitted that inasmuch as the lease was for a period of less than twelve years, there

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

47) (vi) read with Explanation 1 thereto of the Act which defines 'transfer' and read it along with the definition of 'immovable property' under 269 UA (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act and the word 'transfer' in Section 269 UA (f) (i). He submitted that inasmuch as the lease was for a period of less than twelve years, there

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

47) (vi) read with Explanation 1 thereto of the Act which defines 'transfer' and read it along with the definition of 'immovable property' under 269 UA (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act and the word 'transfer' in Section 269 UA (f) (i). He submitted that inasmuch as the lease was for a period of less than twelve years, there

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

47,042 procured from other non-eligible units, by applying the provisions of section 80IA(8) read with section 80IC(7) of the Act. 34.1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing