WESTCOURT HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Acit, Circle 25(1), Room Vs M/S. Westcourt Hospitality No. 192A, Cr Building, Pvt. Ltd. Ip Estate New-Delhi. 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Kunj, 110002 New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2018-19] M/S. Westcourt Hospitality Vs Acit, Circle 25(1),Room Pvt. Ltd. No. 192A, Cr Building, Ip 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Estate New-Delhi. 110002 Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent

section 35D of the Act are to applicable to the facts of the present case. The hon’ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Havels India Ltd. (supra) under identical circumstances has held the expenses on the issue of debentures as revenue expenditure by making following observations: “It is well settled that expenditure incurred in connection with

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

35D of the Act on the ground that expenses claimed related to public issue which did not take place. 2.1 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 9,67,500 being the loan documentation expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act on the ground that

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

35D of the Act on the ground that expenses claimed related to public issue which did not take place. 2.1 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 9,67,500 being the loan documentation expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act on the ground that

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DISH INFRA SERVICES PVT. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

68 of the act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 40,00,020/- made u/s 37 of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PC JEWELLERS LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

68 & 70/Del/2020 PC Jewellers Ltd. 25. The following judgments have been examined. 26. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Ugine & Steel C. Ltd. wherein it was held as under: “We do not find any merit in the above contention. Section 35D

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PC JEWELLERS LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

68 & 70/Del/2020 PC Jewellers Ltd. 25. The following judgments have been examined. 26. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Ugine & Steel C. Ltd. wherein it was held as under: “We do not find any merit in the above contention. Section 35D

VNG AUTOMOTIVE P. LTD. vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

The appeals are disposed of as allowed

35D of the Act was allowed. The assessment orders for the subsequent years do not constitute „additional evidence‟, since they are part of record of the Revenue and that clarificatory Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:10.04.2026 14:51:19 Signature Not Verified ITA 795-796/2004 Page 9 of 30 material is not additional evidence. He has placed reliance

DCIT-CC-27, NEW DELHI vs. ANSHIKA CONSULTANTS PVT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Cross Objection

68 in respect of loan received from M/s Orbital Contractors and Financiers Pvt and accordingly the addition made on this account is directed to be deleted. 11.1. In view of the above, Ground No. 6 and 7 stand allowed.” 9. It is found that the A.O. called for information u/s 136(6) of the Act from all 4 creditors

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

68 of the Act.\nTherefore, ground no. 2 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed sans merit.\n15. In ground no. 3 of appeal, the Revenue has assailed deleting of addition of\nRs.24,67,149/-. The said expenditure was purportedly incurred by the assessee\ntowards foreign and domestic travels of the directors in connection with business.\nThe AO disallowed the expenditure

THAPAR HOMES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

68 of the Act.\nTherefore, ground no. 2 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed sans merit.\n15. In ground no. 3 of appeal, the Revenue has assailed deleting of addition\nof Rs.24,67,149/-. The said expenditure was purportedly incurred by the assessee\ntowards foreign and domestic travels of the directors in connection with business.\nThe AO disallowed the expenditure

DIVYA CREATION,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Divya Creation, Vs. Pr. Cit, Plot No. 97, Nsez, Noida Aayakar Bhawan, A2 D- Block, Sector 24, Noida Pan :Aadfd4879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,296/- earned on various FDR’s is concerned, the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT pointed out to the assessee that interest income earned on surplus fund parked or interest income earned on FDRs for availing credit cannot be said to be derived from business of export in view of the decision in the case of CIT versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

Section 35D of the Act in\n5\nITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024\nC.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024\ncomputing total income under the normal provisions of the Act which has\nbeen allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) following the order passed by the ITAT in\nassessee's own case. In this respect the assessee made the following\nsubmissions before

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

Section 35D of the Act in\n5\nITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024\nC.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024\ncomputing total income under the normal provisions of the Act which has\nbeen allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) following the order passed by the ITAT in\nassessee's own case. In this respect the assessee made the following\nsubmissions before

GOLF TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

35D. Accordingly, he has disallowed sum of Rs.11,085 in both the years and added back to the income. 4. Apart from that, the Assessing Officer observes that in the course of assessment proceeding the assessee company was required to furnish details of purchases made during the relevant year and in the Assessment Year 2006-07 the assessee has made

GOLF TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

35D. Accordingly, he has disallowed sum of Rs.11,085 in both the years and added back to the income. 4. Apart from that, the Assessing Officer observes that in the course of assessment proceeding the assessee company was required to furnish details of purchases made during the relevant year and in the Assessment Year 2006-07 the assessee has made

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

68. That leaves us with the other question, namely, as to whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the legal expenses of Rs. 15 lakhs incurred towards obtaining advice and by way of consultation fees paid to the auditors of the assessee-company as to the feasibility of acquiring a brewery unit in South Africa 69. As the revenue

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year