ACIT CC-14, DELHI vs. DELHI SPOT BULLION TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

section 68 of the Act and the Burden of proof under deeming provisions of Act is on the revenue after explanation with credible evidences had been offered by the appellant. Objection of the AO are under: i) The appellant’s cash in hand increased dramatically to Rs.2.43 Cr. on 8.11.2016 against average cash in hand of Rs. 10-15 lakhs

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

5. That CIT(A)-NFAC; Delhi erred in applying the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in the provisions of section 36(1)(va) applicable w.e.f. 1st April,2021 relevant to F.Y 2020-21 which was categorically mentioned in the 'Memorandum - Explaining the Provisions of the Finance Bill, 2021' accordingly entire disallowance

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

disallowance of Rs 7,92,643/- upheld is totally illegal and bad in law and may kindly be deleted. 5. That the CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition/disallowance made by the AO of Rs 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1

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

disallowance of Rs 7,92,643/- upheld is totally illegal and bad in law and may kindly be deleted. 5. That the CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition/disallowance made by the AO of Rs 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1

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

disallowance of Rs 7,92,643/- upheld is totally illegal and bad in law and may kindly be deleted. 5. That the CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition/disallowance made by the AO of Rs 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1

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

disallowance of Rs 7,92,643/- upheld is totally illegal and bad in law and may kindly be deleted. 5. That the CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition/disallowance made by the AO of Rs 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

5 in Sanjeev Gupta Vs. Addl. CIT, section 9 of the income tax act. Therefore, take should have been deducted under section 195 of the income tax act. He therefore defended the disallowance made by the Ld. assessing officer. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The issue involved before

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]

5. During the course of the hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as under:- 1. The checkmate case was passed by the A.O. U/s 143(3); however, our case was passed by CPC u/s 143(1)(a). 2. The 1 to 6 days delay in crediting employee contributions to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees

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)

5 “Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (employee's contribution) - whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employee's contribution to employee's account in relevant fund on or before due date as prescribed in 5

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

5 lakh (20% of dividend) is • Revenue's Legal Arguments-While acknowledging CIT(A)'s correct II. analysis of Section 14A's retrospective applicability, the disallowance is justified on principle. Proposition A: Section 14A(1

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

5 lakh (20% of dividend) is • Revenue's Legal Arguments-While acknowledging CIT(A)'s correct II. analysis of Section 14A's retrospective applicability, the disallowance is justified on principle. Proposition A: Section 14A(1

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

5 lakh (20% of dividend) is • Revenue's Legal Arguments-While acknowledging CIT(A)'s correct II. analysis of Section 14A's retrospective applicability, the disallowance is justified on principle. Proposition A: Section 14A(1

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

5 AY: 2019-20 it had deposited lesser sum in Provident Fund account. Assessing Officer disallowed same under section 43B. However, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted disallowance on ground that employee's contribution was deposited before filing return. Whether since assessee had not deposited said contribution in respective fund account on date as prescribed in explanation to section 36(1

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be 5 AY: 2018-19 allowed

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be 5 AY: 2018-19 allowed

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)

section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (employee's contribution) - whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employee's contribution to employee's account in relevant fund on or before due date as prescribed in 5

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

1) of section 36 of the Act by inserting another explanation to the said clause to clarify that the provision of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the ―due date under this clause; and (ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said 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

1) of section 36 of the Act by inserting another explanation to the said clause to clarify that the provision of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the ―due date under this clause; and (ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section