MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

40A(5) or section 17(2)(iii) by the same yardstick, such loan cannot also be construed as benefit or a perquisite for the purposes of section 2(24)(iv). In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that section 2(24)(iv) cannot be pressed into service on the facts

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

40A(5) or section 17(2)(iii) by the same yardstick, such loan cannot also be construed as benefit or a perquisite for the purposes of section 2(24)(iv). In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that section 2(24)(iv) cannot be pressed into service on the facts

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

40A(5) or section 17(2)(iii) by the same yardstick, such loan cannot also be construed as benefit or a perquisite for the purposes of section 2(24)(iv). In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that section 2(24)(iv) cannot be pressed into service on the facts

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

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

40a(ia) for alleged failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5063.08 crores, it can be seen that in the course of business of manufacturing two wheelers, the assessee places purchase orders on vendors of certain customized intermediary products like wheel assembly, seat assembly, etc. While placing the aforesaid purchase orders to the vendors

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

40A(2)(b). While it is so, the action of the Revenue in disallowing the certain portion of the expenditure is not justified unless the revenue demonstrates that the transaction is primarily a device to evade tax. 15.13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 held that

DE DIAMOND ELECTRIC INDIA PVT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE - 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 40A(2) cant be pressed into service where as in extant case not only due tax is deducted u/s 195 of Rs 68

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SHIV PRIYA, NOIDA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68,000/- 2 Sh. Anil Kumar Director 5,67,70,500/- 34,06,230/- Sharma 3 Sh. Shiv Priya Director 3,12,00,000/- 18,72,000/- 4 Sh. Madan Mohan Director 3,00,000/- Sharma 50,00,000/- 9,57,70,500/- 57,46,230/- 5 ITA Nos. 6779/Del/2013, C.O 238/Del/2011, ITA No.1101/2014 & C.O No. 300/Del/2014 The A.O observed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SHIV PRIYA, NOIDA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68,000/- 2 Sh. Anil Kumar Director 5,67,70,500/- 34,06,230/- Sharma 3 Sh. Shiv Priya Director 3,12,00,000/- 18,72,000/- 4 Sh. Madan Mohan Director 3,00,000/- Sharma 50,00,000/- 9,57,70,500/- 57,46,230/- 5 ITA Nos. 6779/Del/2013, C.O 238/Del/2011, ITA No.1101/2014 & C.O No. 300/Del/2014 The A.O observed

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity

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

section 40A(2) of the Act had not application. 51. It is submitted that despite the appellant furnishing detailed explanations and supporting documents during the course of revisionary proceedings, the PCIT failed to consider or even refer to these submissions in the impugned order. The PCIT, without dealing with any of the detailed factual submissions or rendering any finding

M/S. RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

2 alongwith sub grounds 2.1 to 2.6, which are either of corroborative or explanatory nature, are taken up together for disposal. The Panel perused the assessment order and the voluminous evidence and lengthy submissions made by the A' in juxtaposition. The main plank of the argument of the AO was that the A' failed to establish the capacity

SECOND LEASING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiay. 2009-10 M/S Second Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-8(1), Flat No. N, Sagar Apartment, Vs. New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi – 11 001 (Pan: Aabcs6609R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

40A(2)(b) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee and completed the assessment at Rs. 2,05,20,282/- vide his order dated 29.10.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Against the assessment order dated 29.10.2011, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated

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

CANDOR GURGAON ONE REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITECH REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four items totalling

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2,68,16,055, property management service fees of INR 46.89.193 and project management service fees of INR 5,17,72,776 paid by the Appellant to its associated enterprises, as NIL, leading to an adjustment of INR 8,32,78,024, and 1.2 confirming additions made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (AO) amounting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 ITR 457] it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section 195(2

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

40A(2)(b). 24. At point 25-31, the assessee company has furnished details of opening/closing stock, sales, purchases, imports & exports. At point 32 & 33, details regarding the expenses have been furnished. At point 34. preliminary expenses claimed during the year under the assessment is Rs. 4.800/- claimed as per the provisions of section 35D. At point

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

68,24,7 4.13% 1,06,06,864 from Gurgaon to 96 Haridwar 3 Transfer of goods 2,88,887 18.24 52,693 from Neemrana % to Haridwar Total 2,20,89,180 10. The learned authorised representative submitted that goods were not purchased by the eligible unit at Haridwar from non-eligible unit(s) owned by the appellant since

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VSF REALTORS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is 25

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhary

40A(2) without appreciating the detailed reasons given in the assessment order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of Rs.2,00,00,000/- without appreciating the detailed reasons given in the assessment order and without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

section 40A(2)(b) would not be invoked by the Assessing Officer. 78 The other provision leading with charging of less consideration are contained in Chapter XA dealing with General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR). However, the provisions were ma applicable from 01.04.2018. Hence, the Assessing Officer could not have disturbed the consideration even when the allegation of charging