VARDHMAN INFRA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-78(3), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.511/Del./2024, A.Y. 2014-15 Vardhman Infra Developers Income Tax Officer, (P) Ltd., 401-414, C-58, Ward-78(3), 4Th Floor, Shahpuri, Vs. Income Tax Office, Tirath Singh, Tower Dda, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan: Aadcv3838M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2014-15 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

TDS was not satisfied with the said explanation and thus, he levied the penalty of Rs.1,02,48,566/- as under: - “12. As seen from the provisions of the section

JASJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

TDS by Koutons groups and only Koutons groups can be treated as assessee in default in terms of provision of section 201 of the Income Tax Act and tax deducted by them from the long term capital gain on sale of shares by the assessee can only be recovered 'from them. Accordingly in respect of tax demand of Rs.18,02

JASJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

TDS by Koutons groups and only Koutons groups can be treated as assessee in default in terms of provision of section 201 of the Income Tax Act and tax deducted by them from the long term capital gain on sale of shares by the assessee can only be recovered 'from them. Accordingly in respect of tax demand of Rs.18,02

M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

02,72,247/- 5. 2009-10 U.PRajkiya 150 crores 3,39,90,000/- 3. Subsequently, he initiated penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act. Various submissions and arguments were recorded by Ld. ACIT (TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

02,13,410/- made by the AO under the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act for non deduction of tax on professional fee? 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

02,13,410/- made by the AO under the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act for non deduction of tax on professional fee? 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

02,13,410/- made by the AO under the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act for non deduction of tax on professional fee? 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

02,13,410/- made by the AO under the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act for non deduction of tax on professional fee? 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 36(1)(viii). This addition may kindly be deleted. 6. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 7. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 36(1)(viii). This addition may kindly be deleted. 6. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 7. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 36(1)(viii). This addition may kindly be deleted. 6. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 7. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 36(1)(viii). This addition may kindly be deleted. 6. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 7. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NTL LEMNIS INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 40(a) (i). 1.4. During the relevant P.Y, assessee paid Rs. 9,85,54,700/- to NTL Lemnis holding BV, a tax resident of Netherlands 5 Modi Entertainment Ltd. towards management support services received pursuant to management agreement dated 02-04-2012(Copy enclosed at Annexure-2) and towards sales and marketing support services received pursuant to sales

DEBASHIS MITRA,G B NAGAR vs. DCIT,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS, Boulevard, Near Pathway School, Ghaziabad. Sector-100, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, TAN/PAN: ACVPM0995M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 02 03 2023 Date of pronouncement: 07 03 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against

DEBASHIS MITRA,G B NAGAR vs. DCIT,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS, Boulevard, Near Pathway School, Ghaziabad. Sector-100, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, TAN/PAN: ACVPM0995M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 02 03 2023 Date of pronouncement: 07 03 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 4595/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, M/S. Alnoor Exports, बनाम C/O. M/S. Rohit Malik & Vs. Associates, Circle : 32 (1) 1403, Chiranjeev Tower, New Delhi. 43 - Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aacfa2599N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Respondent

TDS on export promotion expenses of Rs.14,90,547/- the Assessing Officer disallowed the same. On appeal the ld. CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance to the extent of Rs.13,94,547/- out of Rs.14,90,547/-. 10. The ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the order

MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

TDS on payments gateway charges. Therefore, provisions of section 194H of the Income Tax Act would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. We accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition.’ 7 The ld. DR could not object to the above contentions of the assessee. Accordingly

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION

The Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 18 of the Limitation Act. 12. Deposit of TDS is a payment by the Defendants to the Income Tax Authorities on account of a debt which the Defendants owe to the Plaintiff/Appellant, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Samyak Projects (supra). Undoubtedly, TDS certificate dated 24.09.2015 for deposit of TDS of Rs.48,450/- against