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

disallowance of Rs.49,73,520/- under section 14A of the Act by erroneously holding that the appellant cannot earn dividend income without incurring administrative expenses. 4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the appellant’s claim, amounting to Rs.13,08,609/-for consequential depreciation

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowed under UOP method Taxable Book Profit u/s 6850,01,87,820/- 115JB Tax Payable Basic @ 18.5% 1267,25,34,747/- Add : Surcharge @ 5% 63,36,26,737/- Add : Education Cess 3% 39,91,84,845/- Total Tax Payable under 1370,53,46,329/- MAT 11. So, the AO assessed the total tax payable under section

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of ‘Provision of revision of pay’, I find that in the current Financial Year, no decision of the Central Govt. was available, which may have a bearing on revision of pay of executives of the appellant company, therefore, it cannot be held that such liability had crystallized in the current year. For the Central Govt. Ministries and Departments

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of ‘Provision of revision of pay’, I find that in the current Financial Year, no decision of the Central Govt. was available, which may have a bearing on revision of pay of executives of the appellant company, therefore, it cannot be held that such liability had crystallized in the current year. For the Central Govt. Ministries and Departments

DIRECTOR OF INCO:ME-TAX-I vs. JC BAMFORD EXCAVATORS LIMITED,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

747,491,657 Average Value 11,878,426,619 Total disallowance Total Expenses Less: Interest Expenses to earn Interest Income Less: Expenses for Consultancy & others Less: Expenses which is disallowed as per Provisions of PGBP Donation 1,300,000 Provision for diminution in the value of Investment 43,841,819 Provision for Leave Encashment 745 Loss on Sale of Investment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANT THORNTON, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance of Rs.1,41,08,805/-under section 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of following payments: S.No. Party’s Name Country Amt. (Rs.) 1. Grant Thornton LLP USA 85,16,462 2. Grant Thornton UK LLP UK 33,15,747

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD

747/-. The assessee had voluntarily disallowed expenditure of Rs.1,15,000/- under Section 14A of the Act, calculation for which

MARK EXHAUST SYSTEMS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Mark Exhaust Systems Ltd. Vs Dcit, 606, Vishal Bhawan, 95 Nehru Circle-16(1), Place, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi Pan-Aaacm1497Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Sood, Ca Respondent By Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2021

747/- made on account of disallowance of interest on capital expenses, disallowance made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act of Rs.42

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) is to be deleted. 14.96. It would be pertinent to point that section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from

BT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Bt(India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 3(1), 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, New Delhi. Opp. International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcc 4785 E ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nageshwar Rao Adv. Shri Parth Adv. Respondent By : Shri Amarendra Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2016. Date Of Order : 10/06/20126. O R D E R

Disallowing deduction for prior-period expenditure of INR 26,750,061 (being expenditure liable to tax deduction at source under Chapter XVIIB of the Act) during AY 2008-09 by incorrectly appreciating the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 1.1 The Hon'ble DRP and the learned AO ought to have allowed the deduction for prior period

BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2015-16. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,47,724/- on account of disallowance of Rs.8,25,747

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

disallowed as being capital in nature. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, no portion of the royalty expenditure or Technical Guidance fees incurred by the assessee calls for being disallowed. 49. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and Order of the TPO but could not distinguish the order of the Tribunal for A.Ys

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

section 10A of the Act, in para-15 of the order, has relied on the coordinate bench decision in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1996-97 and 1997-98 and also decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Interglobe Technology Contents Private Limited for assessment year 2007-08 to assessment year

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3), Range-1, New C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Dy. Cit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(2), New Delhi C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar Department By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The learned DRP in their order has listed the activities carried out by the Adidas International Trading BV in relation to procurement of goods as under: “a. Finding manufacturers for the goods concerned and making arrangements for their manufacture; b. Sourcing samples. c. placing orders for and / or purchase goods

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3), Range-1, New C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Dy. Cit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(2), New Delhi C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar Department By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The learned DRP in their order has listed the activities carried out by the Adidas International Trading BV in relation to procurement of goods as under: “a. Finding manufacturers for the goods concerned and making arrangements for their manufacture; b. Sourcing samples. c. placing orders for and / or purchase goods

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3423/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) M/S Dabur India Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, New Delhi Range-10 (Appellant) New Delhi (Respondent)

disallowance can be made under Section 14A. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.5.22 crore under section 14A of the Act. Ground No. 4 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 23. As regards Additional Ground No. 1 filed by the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that the ESOP expenses of Rs.6,71,92,747

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3423/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) M/S Dabur India Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, New Delhi Range-10 (Appellant) New Delhi (Respondent)

disallowance can be made under Section 14A. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.5.22 crore under section 14A of the Act. Ground No. 4 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 23. As regards Additional Ground No. 1 filed by the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that the ESOP expenses of Rs.6,71,92,747

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INDIABULLS REAL ESTATE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6602/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci5194F

Section 14A(2). Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) and the disallowance is directed to be deleted. 12. The similar ratio applies to ground no. 1 in ITA No. 6603/Del/2016. Depreciation: ITA Nos. 6602 & 6603/Del/2016 10 Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd. & Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. 13. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim of depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6602/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci5194F

Section 14A(2). Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) and the disallowance is directed to be deleted. 12. The similar ratio applies to ground no. 1 in ITA No. 6603/Del/2016. Depreciation: ITA Nos. 6602 & 6603/Del/2016 10 Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd. & Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. 13. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim of depreciation