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

disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. From the records we observed that the assessee had produced a movie, for the purpose of advertising and promotion, it had utilized its sister concern to do the same. We observed that the AO had observed

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

disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. From the records we observed that the assessee had produced a movie, for the purpose of advertising and promotion, it had utilized its sister concern to do the same. We observed that the AO had observed

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 of the Act. Ground no. 7: Disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on computer and computer peripherals @ 60% Facts

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

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

section 115 JB of the Act holding the same to be an unascertained liability. Re: Disallowance of alleged excessive purchases from related parties as per AS-18 7

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 36(1)(viii); upheld the disallowance of Rs. 7,92,643/- under section 14A in AY 2014-15 and restored

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 36(1)(viii); upheld the disallowance of Rs. 7,92,643/- under section 14A in AY 2014-15 and restored

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 36(1)(viii); upheld the disallowance of Rs. 7,92,643/- under section 14A in AY 2014-15 and restored

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 36(1)(viii); upheld the disallowance of Rs. 7,92,643/- under section 14A in AY 2014-15 and restored

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance is without recording satisfaction in terms of provisions of section 14A(2) of The Act. (ii) That appellant has not incurred any expenditure for earning of exempt income and as such provisions of section 14A are not applicable to facts of case. 7

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 to the extent of exempted income of ₹ 35,09,948/-. As the assessee made sumo disallowance of ₹ 24,24,142/-, he sustained the balance amount of ₹ 10,85,806/-out of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7

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 to the extent of exempted income of ₹ 35,09,948/-. As the assessee made sumo disallowance of ₹ 24,24,142/-, he sustained the balance amount of ₹ 10,85,806/-out of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7

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 to the extent of exempted income of ₹ 35,09,948/-. As the assessee made sumo disallowance of ₹ 24,24,142/-, he sustained the balance amount of ₹ 10,85,806/-out of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7

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 to the extent of exempted income of ₹ 35,09,948/-. As the assessee made sumo disallowance of ₹ 24,24,142/-, he sustained the balance amount of ₹ 10,85,806/-out of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

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 preferred by the appellant/assessee. The net result was that, while CIT(A) sustained the disallowance ordered by the AO under Section

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

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 preferred by the appellant/assessee. The net result was that, while CIT(A) sustained the disallowance ordered by the AO under Section

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

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 preferred by the appellant/assessee. The net result was that, while CIT(A) sustained the disallowance ordered by the AO under Section

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/IC by applying provisions of Section 80IB/IC by applying provisions of Section 80IA(8) in respect of transfer of goods (Katha & Supari) from Noida division to eligible undertaking. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 07/10/2020 in assessee’s own case (supra) has held as under:- “27. Ground number 7

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

section 14A of the said act, apportioned the said interest expenditure in the ratio of investment in shares of Max India Ltd, on which dividend was received, to the principal amount of unsecured loans, which worked out to Rs. 67,7 4,17 5/-. However, the assessing officer restricted the disallowance