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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

disallowing claim of statutory deduction under section 80IB/IC, to the extent of Rs.26,53,575/-, by applying provisions of section 80IA(8

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 194C. The assessee claimed TDS of only Rs. 8

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 194C. The assessee claimed TDS of only Rs. 8

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 194C. The assessee claimed TDS of only Rs. 8

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

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

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

disallowing j purchases to the extent of Rs. 23.52 crores, with respect to purchases from aforesaid? related parties (in terms of AS-18) for which no comparable instance supporting the allegation of excessive payment, was available, on pure estimate basis. Re: Payment received on behalf of Hero Honda FinCorp. Ltd. (HFCL) deemed as dividend under section 2(22)(e) 8

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

8,63,00,000/- relating to payment received on behalf of M/s Hero Honda Fincorp Ltd. Deemed as dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act since the payment (i.e. advances) were not given in the ordinary course of business? 10. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 80IA (8) in respect of transferred from Silverfoil Division. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 while dealing with the very same issue has held as under:-- “29. The ground number 8 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance

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

8 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 application money received. He further submitted that no dividend income was earned from the shares of the Karnataka Bank Ltd. and no expenses have been incurred for making this investment. Thus, even after invoking the rule 8D of the ‘Rules’ , the disallowance under section

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

8 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 application money received. He further submitted that no dividend income was earned from the shares of the Karnataka Bank Ltd. and no expenses have been incurred for making this investment. Thus, even after invoking the rule 8D of the ‘Rules’ , the disallowance under section

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

8 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 application money received. He further submitted that no dividend income was earned from the shares of the Karnataka Bank Ltd. and no expenses have been incurred for making this investment. Thus, even after invoking the rule 8D of the ‘Rules’ , the disallowance under section

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

8 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 application money received. He further submitted that no dividend income was earned from the shares of the Karnataka Bank Ltd. and no expenses have been incurred for making this investment. Thus, even after invoking the rule 8D of the ‘Rules’ , the disallowance under section

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 by an amount of Rs.6,25,55,736, being the amount of markup at 12.48% attributed over the value of goods, aggregating to Rs.50,12,47,888, procured from other non-eligible units, by applying the provisions of section 80IA(8

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) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. That the disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- is illegal and bad in law and the CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the same. 8

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) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. That the disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- is illegal and bad in law and the CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the same. 8

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) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. That the disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- is illegal and bad in law and the CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the same. 8

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) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. That the disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- is illegal and bad in law and the CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the same. 8

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowing deduction under section 80IC by an amount of Rs. 1,21,00,000, with respect to goods/items, aggregating to Rs. 10,44,47,042 procured from other non-eligible units, by applying the provisions of section 80IA(8