ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

disallowance which cannot be sustained and the same is deserves to the reversed. 30. Per contra, the Assessee's Representative contended that the CIT(A) committed error in confirming the rejection of claim of deduction u/s 80-IA to the extent of Rs. 3,07,11,517/- being interest earned on mobilization addition given to sub-contractor. 31. We have

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

disallowance which cannot be sustained and the same is deserves to the reversed. 30. Per contra, the Assessee's Representative contended that the CIT(A) committed error in confirming the rejection of claim of deduction u/s 80-IA to the extent of Rs. 3,07,11,517/- being interest earned on mobilization addition given to sub-contractor. 31. We have

ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

disallowance which cannot be sustained and the same is deserves to the reversed. 30. Per contra, the Assessee's Representative contended that the CIT(A) committed error in confirming the rejection of claim of deduction u/s 80-IA to the extent of Rs. 3,07,11,517/- being interest earned on mobilization addition given to sub-contractor. 31. We have

DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

disallowance which cannot be sustained and the same is deserves to the reversed. 30. Per contra, the Assessee's Representative contended that the CIT(A) committed error in confirming the rejection of claim of deduction u/s 80-IA to the extent of Rs. 3,07,11,517/- being interest earned on mobilization addition given to sub-contractor. 31. We have

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

disallowance which cannot be sustained and the same is deserves to the reversed. 30. Per contra, the Assessee's Representative contended that the CIT(A) committed error in confirming the rejection of claim of deduction u/s 80-IA to the extent of Rs. 3,07,11,517/- being interest earned on mobilization addition given to sub-contractor. 31. We have

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

801A(7) of the Act. In para 7.3 the Ld. AO gave details of 9 projects containing therein name of the project, employer, nature of project and the amount of deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act. According to the Ld. AO two of the contractee companies, namely Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Ircon International

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

801A\nelectronically. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the assessee failed to point out this\ndiscrepancy and thus there is non- disclosure of true and\ncomplete particulars.\n\nii) As regards the third proviso to section 147, it is\nstated that the same is with respect to the relevant\n assessment year for which the matter is subjected to\nappeal

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

801A(7) of the Act. In para 7.3 the Ld. AO gave details of 9 projects containing therein name of the project, employer, nature of project and the amount of deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act. According to the Ld. AO two of the contractee companies, namely Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Ircon International

ERADICATUS INFECTUS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

3,56,22,484/- u/s 80IAC by invoking clause (II) of Section 143(1)(a) on ground that the assessee has not filed Form No. 10CCB within due date for AY 2023-24. 8. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) Chandigarh. 9. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under:- a) That

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), In the assessment order, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.834,08,54,720/- inter alia, after making disallowance on account of the following: (i) Amortization of licence fee under section 35ABB Despite the specific submissions of the assessee that provisions of section 35ABB

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), In the assessment order, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.834,08,54,720/- inter alia, after making disallowance on account of the following: (i) Amortization of licence fee under section 35ABB Despite the specific submissions of the assessee that provisions of section 35ABB

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), In the assessment order, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.834,08,54,720/- inter alia, after making disallowance on account of the following: (i) Amortization of licence fee under section 35ABB Despite the specific submissions of the assessee that provisions of section 35ABB

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), In the assessment order, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.834,08,54,720/- inter alia, after making disallowance on account of the following: (i) Amortization of licence fee under section 35ABB Despite the specific submissions of the assessee that provisions of section 35ABB

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,85,32,294/- made u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of disproportionate AMP Expenses, by ignoring the facts the these expenses were incurred in the building of the brand name 'Lotus' and all the sister concerns were benefitting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,85,32,294/- made u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of disproportionate AMP Expenses, by ignoring the facts the these expenses were incurred in the building of the brand name 'Lotus' and all the sister concerns were benefitting

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,85,32,294/- made u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of disproportionate AMP Expenses, by ignoring the facts the these expenses were incurred in the building of the brand name 'Lotus' and all the sister concerns were benefitting

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,85,32,294/- made u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of disproportionate AMP Expenses, by ignoring the facts the these expenses were incurred in the building of the brand name 'Lotus' and all the sister concerns were benefitting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,85,32,294/- made u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of disproportionate AMP Expenses, by ignoring the facts the these expenses were incurred in the building of the brand name 'Lotus' and all the sister concerns were benefitting