SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the above appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 40A(3). Rule 6DD is not exhaustive but illustrative. 4 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 and NTPC Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 submitted that the above additional grounds being

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the above appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 40A(3). Rule 6DD is not exhaustive but illustrative. 4 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 and NTPC Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 submitted that the above additional grounds being

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the above appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 40A(3). Rule 6DD is not exhaustive but illustrative. 4 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 and NTPC Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 submitted that the above additional grounds being

INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. BUILDING, ITO vs. SUNITA GOLD AND DIAMONDS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

7. It is the stand of the assessee that the source of cash, which is\ndeposited by it into its bank account pursuant to announcement of\nscheme of demonetization, is the sale proceeds of the sales made by the\nassessee company in its showroom on 08.11.2016. To defend this stand\nof making of sales, defence line of the assessee

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS ,GAUTAM BUDH NAGER vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTONS ,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,GAUTAM BUDH NAGER vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

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)

7 2.40 crores made from the parties who are related parties in terms of accounting standard 18 issued by the section 40A (2) of the income tax act. In the result ground No. 11 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” The purchase prices of components which are purchased from various suppliers are based upon negotiations with such

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

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)

7 | P a g e compulsorily convertible preference shares of Rs 10 each allotted at a premium of Rs 40 per share; b. Form FCGPRS filed by the assessee vide its letter dated September 28, 2010 with HDFC Bank informing it of the inward remittance of Rs 1,860,000,000; c. The valuation report of the preference shares having