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

36(1)(va) Rs. 1,42,72,897/- r.w.s. 2(24)(x) Total Assessed Income Rs. 45,93,89,452/- 3.2 The claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) was denied and taken as ‘NIL’. Accordingly, the final assessment was completed on 29.07.2022 by the Ld. AO under section 143(3)/ 92CA/ 144C(13) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved thereby

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)

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 1,08,85,080/- 2(24)(x), as discussed in para 2.5.4 Less Disallowance of deduction claimed NIL u/s. 80IA as discussed in para 2.5.5 Total assessed income Rs. 49,81,91,872/- 4.3 The claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) was denied and taken as ‘NIL’. Accordingly, the final assessment was completed

FIL INDIA BUSINESS & RESEARCH PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), C.R BUILDING , DELHI

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

House,\nBarakhamba Road,\nNew Delhi-110001\nPAN:AABCF1572C\n(Appellant)\nDCIT,\nNational Faceless\nVs. Assessment Centre,\nDelhi.\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nShri Ravi Sharma, Adv. &\nShri Kshitij Bansal, CA\nDepartment by\nShri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR\n\nDate of hearing\n03.04.2025\nDate of pronouncement\n25.06.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:\n\nThe present appeal is filed

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

va) of section 28; (xiia) the fair market value of inventory referred to in clause (via) of section 28; ITA Nos. 7256 & 241/Del/2019 14 Shiv Kumar Jatia (xiii) any sum referred to in clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xiv) any sum referred to in clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

va) of section 28; (xiia) the fair market value of inventory referred to in clause (via) of section 28; ITA Nos. 7256 & 241/Del/2019 14 Shiv Kumar Jatia (xiii) any sum referred to in clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xiv) any sum referred to in clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section

DCIT,NEW DELHI vs. M/S. M2K ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2012-13

36(1)(va) of the Act is also governed by Section 43B of the Act? 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 3,23,435/- to Rs. 10,759/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. R 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (the Rule

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

House of Lords held that on the true construction of the Agreements, the commissions in question were earned by the assessee in the year in which the policies were underwritten, and must be brought into account accordingly and confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. It may be noted that the charge was on profits arising in each chargeable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

House of Lords held that on the true construction of the Agreements, the commissions in question were earned by the assessee in the year in which the policies were underwritten, and must be brought into account accordingly and confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. It may be noted that the charge was on profits arising in each chargeable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

House of Lords held that on the true construction of the Agreements, the commissions in question were earned by the assessee in the year in which the policies were underwritten, and must be brought into account accordingly and confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. It may be noted that the charge was on profits arising in each chargeable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

House of Lords held that on the true construction of the Agreements, the commissions in question were earned by the assessee in the year in which the policies were underwritten, and must be brought into account accordingly and confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. It may be noted that the charge was on profits arising in each chargeable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

House of Lords held that on the true construction of the Agreements, the commissions in question were earned by the assessee in the year in which the policies were underwritten, and must be brought into account accordingly and confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. It may be noted that the charge was on profits arising in each chargeable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

House of Lords held that on the true construction of the Agreements, the commissions in question were earned by the assessee in the year in which the policies were underwritten, and must be brought into account accordingly and confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. It may be noted that the charge was on profits arising in each chargeable

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

house property. 5. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not deciding the legal and factual issues arising out of the adjustments made vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and merely repeating the additions made u/s 143(1) when it's a well settled law that assessment made u/s 143(1) subsumes into

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

house property. 5. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not deciding the legal and factual issues arising out of the adjustments made vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and merely repeating the additions made u/s 143(1) when it's a well settled law that assessment made u/s 143(1) subsumes into

AVANTHA CONSULTING SERVICES LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

house property. (C) Profits and gains of business or profession. (D) Capital gains. (E) Income from other sources 16. The income of the assessee rightly falls under the head “Income from other sources”. 17. Further, we have perused the provisions of Section 57 of the I.T. Act which reads as under: “Deductions. 57. The income chargeable under the head "Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

36,000/- to Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan (“SMC”) for use of licensed information for the engineering, design and development, manufacture, testing, quality control, sale and after sales service of products and parts. The said payment was claimed as revenue expenditure. The AO in the final assessment order treated the same as capital expenditure on the basis of adjustment for Rs.442.92

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

36,000/- to Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan (“SMC”) for use of licensed information for the engineering, design and development, manufacture, testing, quality control, sale and after sales service of products and parts. The said payment was claimed as revenue expenditure. The AO in the final assessment order treated the same as capital expenditure on the basis of adjustment for Rs.442.92

KAUR KOOKIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, DELHI-4, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

va) of the Act.” 4.4 It is however submitted that in view of aforesaid fact that disallowance has already been made by appellant; there is no prejudice to revenue and infact order is also not erroneous. It is further submitted that even the finding that assessee may claim it in next year on the basis of payment during the year