M/S. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

43A would not be allowed. 5.28. The depreciation claimed on the assets is Rs.1,56,34,104/-. The income of the appellant is enhanced by this amount. The amount of Rs.12,65,54,992/- is deducted from the cost of assets and depreciation on this amount is disallowed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

43A would not be allowed. 5.28. The depreciation claimed on the assets is Rs.1,56,34,104/-. The income of the appellant is enhanced by this amount. The amount of Rs.12,65,54,992/- is deducted from the cost of assets and depreciation on this amount is disallowed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars

M/S. RANBAXY HOLDINGS CO.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs Dcit 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Dcit Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty does not survive as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. In result, the appeal of the assessee being ITA No. 495/Del/2013 is allowed. 13. As regards to Revenue’s appeal is concerned, since Ground No. 1 and 2 contested by the Revenue

M/S. RANBAXY HOLDING COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs Dcit 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Dcit Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty does not survive as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. In result, the appeal of the assessee being ITA No. 495/Del/2013 is allowed. 13. As regards to Revenue’s appeal is concerned, since Ground No. 1 and 2 contested by the Revenue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RANBAXY HOLDING CO., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs Dcit 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Dcit Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty does not survive as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. In result, the appeal of the assessee being ITA No. 495/Del/2013 is allowed. 13. As regards to Revenue’s appeal is concerned, since Ground No. 1 and 2 contested by the Revenue

WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the penalty in this respect is upheld and grounds raised by the Assessee in Cross objection on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act under three additions: i. Addition under Section 43A of the Income

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD., HARYANA

Accordingly, the penalty in this respect is upheld and grounds raised by the Assessee in Cross objection on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act under three additions: i. Addition under Section 43A of the Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD., GURGAON

Accordingly, the penalty in this respect is upheld and grounds raised by the Assessee in Cross objection on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act under three additions: i. Addition under Section 43A of the Income

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

43A, 10% of the gross receipt of a non-resident 14 ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023 & Ors. engaged in the business of providing services or facilities or supplying plant & machinery on hire which is used in prospecting for or extraction of mineral oils shall be deemed to be the profits & gains of business. Thus, this section has rightly been contended

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

43A, 10% of the gross receipt of a non-resident 14 ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023 & Ors. engaged in the business of providing services or facilities or supplying plant & machinery on hire which is used in prospecting for or extraction of mineral oils shall be deemed to be the profits & gains of business. Thus, this section has rightly been contended

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

43A, 10% of the gross receipt of a non-resident 14 ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023 & Ors. engaged in the business of providing services or facilities or supplying plant & machinery on hire which is used in prospecting for or extraction of mineral oils shall be deemed to be the profits & gains of business. Thus, this section has rightly been contended

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TEREX INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Terex India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 5Th Floor, West Wing, E-City, Tower-2, C.R. Building, #94/2 & 95/2, Electronic City Phase-I, Vs New Delhi. Hosur Main Road, Bangalore-560100 Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Terex India Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 5Th Floor, West Wing, E-City, Tower-2, Circle-25(1), #94/2 & 95/2, Electronic City Phase-I, C.R. Vs Hosur Main Road, Building, Bangalore-560100 New Delhi. Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.0 Since the issues involved in the cross appeals are common, both are being taken together. 3.1 Ground Nos. 1 and 5 in the Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and hence need no adjudication. 3.2.0 In Ground No. 2 of its appeal, the Revenue is contesting the exclusion

TEREX INDIA PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Terex India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 5Th Floor, West Wing, E-City, Tower-2, C.R. Building, #94/2 & 95/2, Electronic City Phase-I, Vs New Delhi. Hosur Main Road, Bangalore-560100 Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Terex India Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 5Th Floor, West Wing, E-City, Tower-2, Circle-25(1), #94/2 & 95/2, Electronic City Phase-I, C.R. Vs Hosur Main Road, Building, Bangalore-560100 New Delhi. Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.0 Since the issues involved in the cross appeals are common, both are being taken together. 3.1 Ground Nos. 1 and 5 in the Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and hence need no adjudication. 3.2.0 In Ground No. 2 of its appeal, the Revenue is contesting the exclusion

BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

u/s 28 as these FCs have not been taken for the purposes of business of the assessee on raising of the export invoices but have been taken without due exposure". Even in the present proceedings, the assessee has only reiterated its submissions made earlier and has failed to controvert the findings of the AO and DRP and substantiate its claim

MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimax New York Life Insurance Vs. Dcit, Company Ltd, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi Plot No. 90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the course of hearing the assessee has also raised the additional grounds related to claim of deduction u/s 80G of the Act on account of donation expenditure incurred of Rs. 3 crores in the event that the said expenditure is not an allowable as expenditure u/s

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum ofRs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum ofRs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

43A. The Supreme Court held that the sum ofRs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5(a). In that context the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach