PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3

PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PETRONET LNG LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PETRONET LNG LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3

PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 469.01 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3

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

3,28,68,80,008 (Rs. 328.68 crores), out of total expenditure of Rs. 454.32 crores on account of royalty/technical guidance fee/model fee and cess on model fee, after reducing amount of Rs. 1607.70 lacs disallowed under section 92CA (royalty of Rs. 17.25 lacs and model fee of Rs. 1590.45 lacs) and Rs. 109.56 crores on account of depreciation

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 this claim. Therefore, Ground No. 18 to 18.2 are allowed in favour of the assessee.” From the records it can be seen that the provision for the material is worked out in respect of price amendments which were already issued on 31.03.2009 which was made on the basis of actual supplied made upto the end of the year

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

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

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

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

DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), 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, CIRDE-25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.

The appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas those of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

ii) deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act. is not allowed, the same would be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the assessee would d o for deduction under section 80- IB of the Act. This view was taken by the. court in the following cases: "Principal CIT. Kanpur vs. S onya Merchants Ltd .. I.T. Appeal

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

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

ii. He further referred that in the impugned order the learned principal Commissioner has applied his mind which is clearly demonstrated at paragraph number [3] of the page number [3] of the order where he has consideredthe various judicial precedent quoted before him and found that the content and facts of those case laws are not exactly related