NOIDA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,60,21,483/-\nmade by the AO on the payment of interest on non-convertible debentures issued by\nthe assessee. The claim of the assessee is that it had already disallowed and included\nthe said interest in the total income as per computation of income filed for which our\nattention is drawn to PB pages

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer by way of sale, the said CCD‟s at the predetermined “option price” in accordance to clause 16.2 of the agreement available at page 45 and 46 of the agreement. Thus it is an agreement wherein an investor is subscribing to Compulsorily convertible -Debentures giving a call option to the existing shareholders to buy out the said CCDs

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 no details

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 no details

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 834/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Pepsico India Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income L.G.F 54, World Trade Centre, Tax, Range-14, C.R Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp1272G

Transfer Pricing Officer to the value of international transactions of export of guar gum and pet chips without appreciating the business rationale for undertaking the said transactions by the Appellant. As the loss incurred by the Appellant is only on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rate, no benefit can be said to be derived by the associated enterprise

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PEPSICO (INDIA) HOLDING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 834/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Pepsico India Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income L.G.F 54, World Trade Centre, Tax, Range-14, C.R Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp1272G

Transfer Pricing Officer to the value of international transactions of export of guar gum and pet chips without appreciating the business rationale for undertaking the said transactions by the Appellant. As the loss incurred by the Appellant is only on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rate, no benefit can be said to be derived by the associated enterprise

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

transferred to Bahalgarh unit subsequently. Such unfounded observations of the learned Assessing Officer cannot be one of the bases to deny the deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act. XXX XXX 63. We, accordingly find that the assessee cannot be denied the 49 deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act either in respect of the activities conducted

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 as well

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 as well

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES 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 as well

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

price of the land, for verifying genuineness of these vendors, for examining and verifying the ownership paper to ensure very clear title to the land, for ensuring that lands in question are free from any dispute legal etc., ownership, for negotiating payment terms and for determining the settlements of these transactions. After going through of these processes, assessee had entered

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

price of the land, for verifying genuineness of these vendors, for examining and verifying the ownership paper to ensure very clear title to the land, for ensuring that lands in question are free from any dispute legal etc., ownership, for negotiating payment terms and for determining the settlements of these transactions. After going through of these processes, assessee had entered

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

price of the land, for verifying genuineness of these vendors, for examining and verifying the ownership paper to ensure very clear title to the land, for ensuring that lands in question are free from any dispute legal etc., ownership, for negotiating payment terms and for determining the settlements of these transactions. After going through of these processes, assessee had entered

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

price of the land, for verifying genuineness of these vendors, for examining and verifying the ownership paper to ensure very clear title to the land, for ensuring that lands in question are free from any dispute legal etc., ownership, for negotiating payment terms and for determining the settlements of these transactions. After going through of these processes, assessee had entered

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

35D of the Act, the claim can be examined under Section 37 of the Act. The AO will examine the case afresh and decide the issue as per law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Refer page no.9 of ITAT order dated 31.08.2007. However, for assessment year 2004-05 the CIT, Appeal-XII, in appeal No. 71/07-08

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

35D of the Act, the claim can be examined under Section 37 of the Act. The AO will examine the case afresh and decide the issue as per law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Refer page no.9 of ITAT order dated 31.08.2007. However, for assessment year 2004-05 the CIT, Appeal-XII, in appeal No. 71/07-08

M/S HOUSING & URBAN DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

35D of the Act, the claim can be examined under Section 37 of the Act. The AO will examine the case afresh and decide the issue as per law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Refer page no.9 of ITAT order dated 31.08.2007. However, for assessment year 2004-05 the CIT, Appeal-XII, in appeal No. 71/07-08

M/S HOUSING & URBAN DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

35D of the Act, the claim can be examined under Section 37 of the Act. The AO will examine the case afresh and decide the issue as per law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Refer page no.9 of ITAT order dated 31.08.2007. However, for assessment year 2004-05 the CIT, Appeal-XII, in appeal No. 71/07-08

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. (HUDCO), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

35D of the Act, the claim can be examined under Section 37 of the Act. The AO will examine the case afresh and decide the issue as per law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Refer page no.9 of ITAT order dated 31.08.2007. However, for assessment year 2004-05 the CIT, Appeal-XII, in appeal No. 71/07-08