TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 in ITA No.2720/Del/2025 and the only issue in the appeal of the assessee is in respect of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules which the Ld. CIT(A) sustained, the assessee did not earn any exempt income on such investments. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., sustained the additional disallowance. Now, the question for consideration is whether in the absence of dividend income earned the investments shall be considered for the purpose of disallowance under Rule 8D. The Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... own case & the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. without discussing the merits of the case? 2. Whether on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) was correct in law in holding that the ESOP expenses are admissible as deduction whereas the same is capital in nature and not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act? 3. Whether on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in la in allowing the additional claim of Rs. 82,28,903/- on account of Medic reimbursement & leave travel allowance which has not been claimed through Return of Income or Revised Return of Income as decided in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs CIT by Hon'ble Supreme Court?" 7. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... natural justice, the impugned order is erroneous, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC has erred in upholding the rectification order passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. AO') as the said order is bad in law, void and liable to be quashed in-toto 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC has erred in passing rectification order dated 10 March 2024 after the limitation period prescribed under section 154 of the Act. (i.e. after 31 March 2024 as the DIN was generated on 10 June 2024). 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter dated 30.03.2021. On 14.09.2022 the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn since the disputes in appeal was settled under DTVSV Scheme, 2020. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that after settling the issues/disputes under DTVSV Scheme, a notice u/s.154 was issued by the AO proposing to enhance the income of the assessee assessed u/s.143(3) on account of late depositing of employee's contribution to PF. Assessee furnished its reply on 10.02.2022. However, the AO passed repetitive rectification orders u/s.154 dated 31.03.2024 and 10.03.2024. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these two rectification orders passed u/s.154 of the Act are bad in law for the reason that the rectification ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.2722/Del/2025 A.Y.2018-19. Assessee in this appeal challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additional disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D of IT Rules under normal provisions as well as book profits u/s.115 JB of the Act. 17. Identical issue had been decided by us for the A.Y.2013-14 in favour of the assessee in respect of disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D while computing the normal provisions of the Act. Since the facts are identical in the assessment year under consideration, the decision taken therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal for the A.Y. 2018-19. We order accordingly. 18. In so far the disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.r 8D while computing the book profits u/s.115JB of the Act is concerned we observe ....