SMS CONCAST AG,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

36,26,752/- vide its order dated 31-07-2017. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing officer the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 15-11-2018 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed this appeal before the tribunal

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

va) to Section 28 was inserted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not have been levied on this ground. Undisputedly, it was a debatable issue and hence did not call for levy of penalty. Further, regarding the second ground of addition relating to claim of loss on transfer of land to DDA also, full disclosure in the return of income

MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

va) to Section 28 was inserted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not have been levied on this ground. Undisputedly, it was a debatable issue and hence did not call for levy of penalty. Further, regarding the second ground of addition relating to claim of loss on transfer of land to DDA also, full disclosure in the return of income

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act. 5.2 Alternatively, the Ld. AO has erred in appreciating the fact and the law that the expenses incurred was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and should be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making adjustment

GENCHI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Rs.17,14,158/- I.T. Act. 4. The penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) by issuing notice u/s 274 of the Act on 15.12.2018 after being satisfied that the assessee had furnished in accurate particulars of its income. During penalty proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration

DILESHWAR NATH,NEW DELHI vs. ITD, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19

271/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delay in depositing the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF. The Central Processing Centre (“CPC”), Bengaluru vide intimation dated 17.05.2019 u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19, has made adjustment of taxes after considering the disallowance of expenditure on account

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, 16(1), Vs Microsoft Corporation (India) New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessment Year: 2015-16 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-6, 807, New Delhi House, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C

u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The necessary facts on that account being that during the course of proceedings, the AO perused Form 3CD filed for the subject AY and asked the Appellant to show cause as to why late deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund ('PF') should not be disallowed

ACIT, 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, 16(1), Vs Microsoft Corporation (India) New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessment Year: 2015-16 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-6, 807, New Delhi House, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C

u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The necessary facts on that account being that during the course of proceedings, the AO perused Form 3CD filed for the subject AY and asked the Appellant to show cause as to why late deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund ('PF') should not be disallowed

IYOGI TECHNICAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. Aggrieved with the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.197,71,98,209/- made by the Assessing officer on account

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. IYOGI TECHNICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. Aggrieved with the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.197,71,98,209/- made by the Assessing officer on account

MOBASE INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

36(1)(va) and treating the same income of the assessee under section 2 (24)(x) of the Income Tax Act,1961, without considering that the provisions of section 43B are applicable to such payment as the payment has been deposited before filing of Income Tax Return as per section 139(1) of the Act. 5.2 The Assessing Officer erred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATAX INIDA LIMITED, DELHI

271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari\nCotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)\nhas observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever,\nwide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without\nreference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed\nonly

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HANON CLIMATE SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VISTEON CLIMATE SYSTEMS LIMITED INDIA LTD), NEW DELHI

Accordingly decided against the Revenue while ground no. 2 is decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of revenue is allowed partly

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5813/Del/2018, A.Y. 2012-13

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) have been initiated separately.” 5813.Del.2018 M/s. Hanon Climate Systems India P. Ltd. 3. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the basis of following relevant findings in para 5.3 to 5.7 as follows :- “5.3 I have considered the facts of the case and contention of the appellant. It is clear