HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act were, both on facts and in law, not\n3\nITA No. 2542/Del/2024\napplicable and hence, there was no warrant to make addition of\nRs.418,66,34,625.”\n3.\nGround nos. 1 to 7 of the appeal are against the disallowance

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)

section clearly imposing liability". This exception has been also reiterated by Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 5. However, in the present case, this exception has no application. The rule of resolving ambiguity in favour of the assessee does not also apply where the interpretation in favour of assessee will have

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

disallow excessive purchase price paid to the aforesaid parties, notwithstanding that the said parties were not related, in terms of provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. 22 Accordingly, the assessing officer computed excessive purchase price at Rs. 14,56

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

56,97,665/- for non- deduction of TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under

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

56,97,665/- for non- deduction of TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under

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

56,97,665/- for non- deduction of TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under

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

56,97,665/- for non- deduction of TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, the assessing officer disallowed 30% of total trade discount of Rs. 56

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 56(2). DCIT Vs Veena Goyal (ITAT Jaipur) Appeal Number: ITA No. 751JPI2020 the same has been reiterated Without prejudice to what has been stated above, the Ld. A.O, in complete haste, has made several errors while drawing the assessment order in as much that the number of bonus shares received by the appellant have not been mentioned correctly

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 56(2). DCIT Vs Veena Goyal (ITAT Jaipur) Appeal Number: ITA No. 751JPI2020 the same has been reiterated Without prejudice to what has been stated above, the Ld. A.O, in complete haste, has made several errors while drawing the assessment order in as much that the number of bonus shares received by the appellant have not been mentioned correctly

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 194H of the Act. 16. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,56

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

Section 35DD of the Act. ii. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,08,262/-, after deducting suo motu disallowance of Rs.7

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

Section 35DD of the Act. ii. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,08,262/-, after deducting suo motu disallowance of Rs.7

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

Section 35DD of the Act. ii. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,08,262/-, after deducting suo motu disallowance of Rs.7

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be made in the absence of any exempt income. In coming to the said 19 ITA No. 7552 & CO. 27/Del./2018 conclusion, the Hon’ble Court observed as under [refer pages 56

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

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

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

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly

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

section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total income as defined in section 2(45). …………………………………. 27. Form No.1 read with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for return of income and return of fringe benefits. ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 28. In Schedule NO.9 at column NO.7 it is clearly