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

48,090 = Rs. 11,71,623. This methodology is defensible and is used by most AOs. It reflects the proportionate relationship between the TDS shortfall and the gross payment. However, there is an alternative line of reasoning: under section 40(a)(ia), the entire payment is disallowable

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

48,090 = Rs. 11,71,623. This methodology is defensible and is used by most AOs. It reflects the proportionate relationship between the TDS shortfall and the gross payment. However, there is an alternative line of reasoning: under section 40(a)(ia), the entire payment is disallowable

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 48 of the Act without appreciating that such finding was extraneous and beyond jurisdiction to assessment year under consideration inasmuch as the said issue could be raised only in the year of sale of investment(s). For the aforesaid cumulative reasons, additional disallowance

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act would be nil. 3.8 Thirdly, submitted that there is net interest income and thus no interest expenditure is required to be allocated towards the investment in assets yielding exempt income. Further, he referred to page 111 to 115 of the paper-book, which contain details of capital gain of ₹ 1,21,48

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act would be nil. 3.8 Thirdly, submitted that there is net interest income and thus no interest expenditure is required to be allocated towards the investment in assets yielding exempt income. Further, he referred to page 111 to 115 of the paper-book, which contain details of capital gain of ₹ 1,21,48

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act would be nil. 3.8 Thirdly, submitted that there is net interest income and thus no interest expenditure is required to be allocated towards the investment in assets yielding exempt income. Further, he referred to page 111 to 115 of the paper-book, which contain details of capital gain of ₹ 1,21,48

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act would be nil. 3.8 Thirdly, submitted that there is net interest income and thus no interest expenditure is required to be allocated towards the investment in assets yielding exempt income. Further, he referred to page 111 to 115 of the paper-book, which contain details of capital gain of ₹ 1,21,48

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

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

section 14A of the Act calls for being deleted. 47. He further submitted that it is pertinent to point out, that the Tribunal in the appellant‟s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 set- aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer to be decided afresh as per law, having regard

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

section 143(3) of the Act and it cannot be said that the issue of valuation of closing stock has not been examined, and (ii) secondly, there is no mistake in the accounting/valuation method followed by the appellant in relation to the aforesaid expenses, since the issue of inclusion of the aforesaid expenses in closing inventory would arise only

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

disallowed under section 14A and challenged in ground of appeal no. 16 to 16.2 supra, are even otherwise not allowable business deductions under section 36(l)(iii) and section 37(1) of the Act, respectively. 25.4. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that expenses incurred during the year, including interest expenditure

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

48,325 3. ½% of average investments [(refer Rule 8D(2)(iii)] 97,39,000 Total 1,63,87,325 Less: Suo motu disallowance by appellant/assessee 7,79,063 DISALLOWANCE 1,56,08,262 4.2. The appellant/assessee carried the order, passed by the AO, in appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide order dated 30.07.2013, partly allowed the appeal

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

48,325 3. ½% of average investments [(refer Rule 8D(2)(iii)] 97,39,000 Total 1,63,87,325 Less: Suo motu disallowance by appellant/assessee 7,79,063 DISALLOWANCE 1,56,08,262 4.2. The appellant/assessee carried the order, passed by the AO, in appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide order dated 30.07.2013, partly allowed the appeal

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

48,325 3. ½% of average investments [(refer Rule 8D(2)(iii)] 97,39,000 Total 1,63,87,325 Less: Suo motu disallowance by appellant/assessee 7,79,063 DISALLOWANCE 1,56,08,262 4.2. The appellant/assessee carried the order, passed by the AO, in appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide order dated 30.07.2013, partly allowed the appeal

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

48,815 =Rs.89,68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

48,815 =Rs.89,68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

48,815 =Rs.89,68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

48,815 =Rs.89,68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishia N D Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act of Rs.49,318/-for the reason that assessee submitted copies of only 6 agreements out of the total claim related to 7 loan agreements. In absence of detail about one loan agreement, the Assessing Officer restricted the claim of the assessee to Rs.25,04,496/- instead of Rs.25,53,814/-. The CIT (Appeals