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 on Remaining Amount (Rs. 4,41,315):Even if the Rs. 9,72,000 is accepted as a group company payment and excluded, the balance amount (Rs. 14,13,315 - Rs. 9,72,000 = Rs. 4,41,315) does attract TDS under section

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 on Remaining Amount (Rs. 4,41,315):Even if the Rs. 9,72,000 is accepted as a group company payment and excluded, the balance amount (Rs. 14,13,315 - Rs. 9,72,000 = Rs. 4,41,315) does attract TDS under section

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

72,57,820/- under normal provisions and Rs. 2984,69,82,290/- under section 115JB of the Act. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions deleted the disallowances

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

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

72,520/-. The book profit income under Section 115JB of the Act was shown at Rs.4376,53,14,839/-. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 11.07.2017. The details were filed by the assessee on-line and they were duly examined by the National e-Assessment team. 3. The assessee company entered into certain international and specified domestic transactions

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

disallowing deduction under section 80IC of the Act by an amount of Rs. 194,72,20,072 in respect of certain

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 14A of the Act, inter alia, by wrongly including (a) strategic/ business investments of the appellant; (b) investments yielding taxable income during the relevant year; and (c) investments not actually yielding exempt income during the relevant year, while applying formulae prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules. 10 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT

ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 14A of the Act, inter alia, by wrongly including (a) strategic/ business investments of the appellant; (b) investments yielding taxable income during the relevant year; and (c) investments not actually yielding exempt income during the relevant year, while applying formulae prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules. 10 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 14A of the Act, inter alia, by wrongly including (a) strategic/ business investments of the appellant; (b) investments yielding taxable income during the relevant year; and (c) investments not actually yielding exempt income during the relevant year, while applying formulae prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules. 10 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 14A of the Act, inter alia, by wrongly including (a) strategic/ business investments of the appellant; (b) investments yielding taxable income during the relevant year; and (c) investments not actually yielding exempt income during the relevant year, while applying formulae prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules. 10 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 14A of the Act, inter alia, by wrongly including (a) strategic/ business investments of the appellant; (b) investments yielding taxable income during the relevant year; and (c) investments not actually yielding exempt income during the relevant year, while applying formulae prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules. 10 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 14A of the Act, inter alia, by wrongly including (a) strategic/ business investments of the appellant; (b) investments yielding taxable income during the relevant year; and (c) investments not actually yielding exempt income during the relevant year, while applying formulae prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules. 10 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 14A of the Act, inter alia, by wrongly including (a) strategic/ business investments of the appellant; (b) investments yielding taxable income during the relevant year; and (c) investments not actually yielding exempt income during the relevant year, while applying formulae prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules. 10 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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

72,22,842/-. 12. Ground No. 4 is with respect to disallowance of Rs.73,46,160/- being provisions for bad and doubtful debts created in compliance with NBFC Prudential Norms Directives, 1998 Issued by Reserve Bank of India in pursuance of provisions of Section

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

72,880/-); NTL Banerghatta Road, Bangalore (Rs.5,23,90,061/-) and NTL Athena, New Delhi (Rs.93,03,25,683/-), totaling to Rs.106,43,88,624/-. In respect of these units, deduction under section 10B of the Act was claimed in assessment year 2006-07 also which was disallowed

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

72,880/-); NTL Banerghatta Road, Bangalore (Rs.5,23,90,061/-) and NTL Athena, New Delhi (Rs.93,03,25,683/-), totaling to Rs.106,43,88,624/-. In respect of these units, deduction under section 10B of the Act was claimed in assessment year 2006-07 also which was disallowed

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

72,880/-); NTL Banerghatta Road, Bangalore (Rs.5,23,90,061/-) and NTL Athena, New Delhi (Rs.93,03,25,683/-), totaling to Rs.106,43,88,624/-. In respect of these units, deduction under section 10B of the Act was claimed in assessment year 2006-07 also which was disallowed

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

72,880/-); NTL Banerghatta Road, Bangalore (Rs.5,23,90,061/-) and NTL Athena, New Delhi (Rs.93,03,25,683/-), totaling to Rs.106,43,88,624/-. In respect of these units, deduction under section 10B of the Act was claimed in assessment year 2006-07 also which was disallowed

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowance of the commuted lease rentals. The appeal is allowed in this ground no. 7 of appeal. Since appeal is allowed in ground no. 7 of appeal, therefore, the plea of the appellant in ground no. 8 of appeal is infructuous and not necessary to be adjudicated.” 9.9 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has distinguished the expenditure