DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

Sections 206AB & 206CCA implying that the supplier has duly filed the return of income for the AY 2021-22 and hence the very pretext on which the disallowance has been made is not correct. The appellant has also submitted that the input tax credit claimed against these purchases already stand allowed proving that the supplier is regularly filing

M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s.80IA of the Act by applying the Explanation to sec.80IA of the Act. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals), who following the earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No.544/Mds/2010 dated 13.9.2011 allowed the claim

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

94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, 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

94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, 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

94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, 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

4 lacs. On further appeal, the CIT(A) vide order dated 01.02.2018 deleted the disallowance made by the AO in the set aside order. It would, however, be pertinent to point out that the aforesaid disallowance sustained by the Tribunal in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 has been categorically distinguished by the ITAT

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

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

94,045) given to the dealers/customers under section 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the appellant failed to deduct tax at source therefrom under section 194H of the Act. 9.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law inobserving that since the impugned payments were not in the nature of „discount‟ to dealers, but incentives for meeting

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

94,648/- computed by the AO. Hence, appellant gets relief of Rs.8,68,77,578/-.” 10.18 Before the Ld AO, the assessee made disallowance according to its own method of disallowance , which was not accepted by the Ld AO and invoked the Rule 8D of the Rules. In our opinion, when he rejected the disallowance computed by the assessee, that

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

94,648/- computed by the AO. Hence, appellant gets relief of Rs.8,68,77,578/-.” 10.18 Before the Ld AO, the assessee made disallowance according to its own method of disallowance , which was not accepted by the Ld AO and invoked the Rule 8D of the Rules. In our opinion, when he rejected the disallowance computed by the assessee, that

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

94,648/- computed by the AO. Hence, appellant gets relief of Rs.8,68,77,578/-.” 10.18 Before the Ld AO, the assessee made disallowance according to its own method of disallowance , which was not accepted by the Ld AO and invoked the Rule 8D of the Rules. In our opinion, when he rejected the disallowance computed by the assessee, that

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

94,648/- computed by the AO. Hence, appellant gets relief of Rs.8,68,77,578/-.” 10.18 Before the Ld AO, the assessee made disallowance according to its own method of disallowance , which was not accepted by the Ld AO and invoked the Rule 8D of the Rules. In our opinion, when he rejected the disallowance computed by the assessee, that

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

4) MUMBAI it was held as under: - 2. 7. It appears that the only thing that has tilted the scale against it is returning back of notices, issued by the AO, u/s.133(6)of the Act. But, this itself is not sufficient to hold that purchases made by it were bogus. In the case of Nikunj Exim Export

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

4) MUMBAI it was held as under: - 2. 7. It appears that the only thing that has tilted the scale against it is returning back of notices, issued by the AO, u/s.133(6)of the Act. But, this itself is not sufficient to hold that purchases made by it were bogus. In the case of Nikunj Exim Export

MDLR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

94,600/- Rs. 4,43,55,115/- representing the loss incurred on purchase and sale of shares Ground No.1.1)That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while making the aforesaid disallowance has acted in excess of jurisdiction and therefore, Linked to ground the same is beyond the scope and powers vested in the learned Commissioner of no.l Income

MDLR BUILDERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

94,600/- Rs. 4,43,55,115/- representing the loss incurred on purchase and sale of shares Ground No.1.1)That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while making the aforesaid disallowance has acted in excess of jurisdiction and therefore, Linked to ground the same is beyond the scope and powers vested in the learned Commissioner of no.l Income

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

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under section 80IA(4) made in its revised return against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 8.1 The Ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowed : Rs. 1,20,213 v. Add: Personal expenses : Rs. 18,482 1,52,50,621 3. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES i. As per the return : NIL ii. Unexplained Sundry Creditor : Rs. 54,29,787 ii. Unexplained in capital : Rs. 44,32,000 iv. Unexplained investment in fixed assets : Rs. 8,59,643 v. Deemed dividend

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)

94,313/- Add: Adjustment as per order Rs. 85,17,357/- under section 92CA(3) of the TPO Add: Claim of deduction of Rs. 13,14,55,586/- retention money retained by the contractee Add: Disallowance u/s. As per 4.2 of AO’s Rs. 19,40,67,731/- order Disallowance under section