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

6)=5/(1+4) (7) (8)=5*100/ *100 7 2015-16 6445450 7370159 9247089 2016-17 1123000 1507290 4558750 21250000 2433750 18.22 21060615 11.56 00 28 0 0 1 The cash deposited by the appellant after demonetization is just 18.22% of the cash deposited before demonetization. The appellant had made cash sales even after demonetization and deposited huge cash

M/S. AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 )(iii) of the Act. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above ground, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in not allowing depreciation under section 32 of the Act on the disallowed interest amount, by not adding the same to the actual cost of the acquired fixed assets. 4. Ground

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

6 and 7 thereof refer (copy at page 165-167 of the Paper Book). The Revenue’s appeal in AY 2011-12 against the CIT(A)’s order stands dismissed by the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1268/Del/2015 dated 14.3.2023. The appeal of the Revenue pertaining to AY 2012-13 against the deletion of similar disallowance

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

6 and 7 thereof refer (copy at page 165-167 of the Paper Book). The Revenue’s appeal in AY 2011-12 against the CIT(A)’s order stands dismissed by the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1268/Del/2015 dated 14.3.2023. The appeal of the Revenue pertaining to AY 2012-13 against the deletion of similar disallowance

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

6 and 7 thereof refer (copy at page 165-167 of the Paper Book). The Revenue’s appeal in AY 2011-12 against the CIT(A)’s order stands dismissed by the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1268/Del/2015 dated 14.3.2023. The appeal of the Revenue pertaining to AY 2012-13 against the deletion of similar 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

6 and 7 thereof refer (copy at page 165-167 of the Paper Book). The Revenue’s appeal in AY 2011-12 against the CIT(A)’s order stands dismissed by the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1268/Del/2015 dated 14.3.2023. The appeal of the Revenue pertaining to AY 2012-13 against the deletion of similar disallowance

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]

iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return

HALDIA COKE AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Haldia Code & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, No.18/3, Sigapi Achi Building, Circle-11(1), 4Th Floor, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Road, New Delhi. Egmore, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600 004. Pan: Aabch5389P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2023 Order

disallowance should not be done under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and without prejudice to the above, justify the interest payment u/s 36(1)(iii). Assessee responded that assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies; that investment in mutual funds of Rs.3,00,000/- has also been done; that assessee

M/S. MENORA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

iii) was made. The Ld AO made the disallowance for following reasons:- “DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES u/s 36(1 Uiii) Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 3125/Del/2016 and 2716/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) 1. It is seen from the return of income and Memorandum of Association of the assessee company that the assessee company was incorporated

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MENORA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

iii) was made. The Ld AO made the disallowance for following reasons:- “DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES u/s 36(1 Uiii) Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 3125/Del/2016 and 2716/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) 1. It is seen from the return of income and Memorandum of Association of the assessee company that the assessee company was incorporated

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowing provisions thereof would be inapplicable. 23. As regards the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant would be liable to pay interest under Section 234A. However, with regard to levy of interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held that if the receipt of income by the appellant was of such

SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Deepti Agarwal, Vs Acit, C/O M/S Pra Taxindia, Circle-53(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aampa0573C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th July, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal No.1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:-

section 36(1)(iii) by the Assessing Officer was held to be not proper and the order of the Tribunal was upheld. Relying on various other decisions, he submitted that following the rule of consistency no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) is called for. 10. Referring to the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pranik

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, return of the income filed by the appellant/assessee was processed by the Assessing Officer and an intimation order dated 16.12.2021 was issued exercising power under Section 143(1)(a) Act of 1961, wherein, claims

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, return of the income filed by the appellant/assessee was processed by the Assessing Officer and an intimation order dated 16.12.2021 was issued exercising power under Section 143(1)(a) Act of 1961, wherein, claims

HALDIA COKE AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 11, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance should not be done under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and without prejudice to the above, justify the interest payment u/s 36(1)(iii). Assessee responded that assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies; that investment in mutual funds of Rs.3,00,000/- has also been done; that assessee

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

disallowances have been made contrary to the dictum laid down by various Courts. 12. Each of the aforesaid contention is briefly elaborated hereunder: Re (a): Assessment completed without issuance of show cause notice cum draft assessment order prior to draft order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act and without providing opportunity of hearing

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, return of the income filed by the appellant/assessee was processed by the Assessing Officer and an intimation order dated 16.12.2021 was issued exercising power under Section 143(1)(a) Act of 1961, wherein, claims

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, return of the income filed by the appellant/assessee was processed by the Assessing Officer and an intimation order dated 16.12.2021 was issued exercising power under Section 143(1)(a) Act of 1961, wherein, claims

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

6 in AY 2005-06 raised by the revenue is dismissed. With regard to ground no 5 in other AYs are also dismissed. 19. With regard to Ground No.6 of AY 2007-08 regarding business promotion expenses, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted as under :- “Statutory Framework &Issue: The assessee claimed Rs. 1,81,000 as a business promotion expense