YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

40A(5) of the Act now stands, it is not possible to answer the said question in the manner suggested by the Department. Accordingly, we answer question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

40A(5) of the Act now stands, it is not possible to answer the said question in the manner suggested by the Department. Accordingly, we answer question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

40A(5) of the Act now stands, it is not possible to answer the said question in the manner suggested by the Department. Accordingly, we answer question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

house) was also maintained by the trust, to take care of stay of visitors /travelers who come to visit the Ashram for their great respect for Gandhiji and his philosophy. However nominal rates were charged from such visitors/travelers for providing accommodation facilities. The assesse was, however, for the assessment year 2009-10, denied renewal of registration under section

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

House: 139 ITR 182 (P&H) 158 In the facts of the present case, the Pr. CIT, in respect of all the issues, have merely held that further enquiry and examination is required, without even recording as to how the assessment order sought to be revised is erroneous on such issues; no error whatsoever has been pointed out regarding

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

House: 139 ITR 182 (P&H)\n158 In the facts of the present case, the Pr. CIT, in respect of all the issues, have merely held that further enquiry and examination is required, without even recording as to how the assessment order sought to be revised is erroneous on such issues; no error whatsoever has been pointed out regarding

ITO WARD-27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNIVERSAL HEIGHTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 8125/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Universe Heights (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 5G/1, Everest 46C, Chowringee Ward-27(1), Road, Kolkata-700071 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu4605K

Section 40A(2)(a), disallowed the excessive interest charged at the rate of 12% and hence, made a disallowance of Rs 4,48,39,232/-. 17. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the interest payment from 24% to 18% and held that interest payment @ 18% is justifiable. 18. For the sake of ready reference, the operative part of the order

UNIVERSE HEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 8125/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Universe Heights (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 5G/1, Everest 46C, Chowringee Ward-27(1), Road, Kolkata-700071 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu4605K

Section 40A(2)(a), disallowed the excessive interest charged at the rate of 12% and hence, made a disallowance of Rs 4,48,39,232/-. 17. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the interest payment from 24% to 18% and held that interest payment @ 18% is justifiable. 18. For the sake of ready reference, the operative part of the order

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel

M/S. TRINITY GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rs. 5,60,500/- paid to others without assigning any reason for allowing only 30% of total expenditure claimed by the assessee.” 2 Trinity Global Enterprises Ltd. Share Application Money: Excerpts taken from the Assessing Officer: 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had issued

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. OTHER GROUNDS RETAINED. 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing the entire expenditure of Rs. 9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. OTHER GROUNDS RETAINED. 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing the entire expenditure of Rs. 9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. OTHER GROUNDS RETAINED. 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing the entire expenditure of Rs. 9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI PRESS SAMACHAR PATRA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

40A(2) he held that all the companies whom payments have been made are accessed to tax and therefore, there is no question of diversion of profits. He further stated that 2% disallowance made by the ld AO is merely on the basis of suspicion and without brining any adverse material on record. Therefore, he deleted the disallowance

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property is upheld. He rejected the other alternatives proposed by the assessee for computing the fair rent on the basis of backward calculation of municipal tax paid. 14. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ground no.1 raised in AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 which are unabated assessments and owing to no incriminating