ITO, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. CHAMAN, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

10(37) and by insertion of sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv), the nature of interest under section 28 of the 1894 Act will remain that of compensation and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai vs. ITO TDS

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal to operating costs, but no clear methodology for apportioning costs between Sahara and Percept (the JVC partners) is documented. 3. TDS non-compliance: The assessee failed to produce evidence of TDS deduction on the reimbursement payment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal to operating costs, but no clear methodology for apportioning costs between Sahara and Percept (the JVC partners) is documented. 3. TDS non-compliance: The assessee failed to produce evidence of TDS deduction on the reimbursement payment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal to operating costs, but no clear methodology for apportioning costs between Sahara and Percept (the JVC partners) is documented. 3. TDS non-compliance: The assessee failed to produce evidence of TDS deduction on the reimbursement payment

VIJAY KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-29(1), MINTO ROAD NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10(37) and\nby insertion of Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv), the nature of interest\nunder Section 28 of the 1894 Act will remain that of compensation\nand decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nGhanshyam (HUF) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in\nMovaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai vs. ITO TDS

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

10(37). It is also submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi, consistently held that interest under Section 28 is part of the enhanced compensation and, therefore, not taxable under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. CIT(A), however, in para 5.7 of the impugned order, erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

10 of 17 agreement, the payments attracted TDS under Section 194-C and not Section 194-I of the Act. 24. There is another reason as to why such a question cannot be examined again. There is a distinction in the wording of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Section 271-C of the Act. The penalty imposed

HARI SINGH,PALWAL vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10(37) and by insertion of sections 56(2)(viii)\nand 57(iv), the nature of interest under section 28 of the\n1894 Act will remain that of compensation and decisions\nof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam\n(HUF) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in\nMovaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai vs. ITO TDS

AVAYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 466/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 202, Platina, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. Circle-1(1), C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla New Delhi Complex, Bandra(E), Mumabi, Maharashtra-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3592N Assessee By : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2021

10. In all these years, the assessee is found to be a debt free company and there is no dispute on these facts. We have considered the judgment of Pr. CIT Vs BECHTEL India Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 21.07.2016. The Hon’ble High Court after examining the order in the assessee

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

TDS liability when payment to a payee is on net of tax basis. 24. The ld. Counsel referring to the provisions of section 115-O(6) submits that sub-section (6) exempt a developer or enterprise of SEZ or the person receiving such dividend from the rigours of section 115-O(1) of the Act. The conferring of exemption

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

TDS liability when payment to a payee is on net of tax basis. 24. The ld. Counsel referring to the provisions of section 115-O(6) submits that sub-section (6) exempt a developer or enterprise of SEZ or the person receiving such dividend from the rigours of section 115-O(1) of the Act. The conferring of exemption

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

TDS liability when payment to a payee is on net of tax basis. 24. The ld. Counsel referring to the provisions of section 115-O(6) submits that sub-section (6) exempt a developer or enterprise of SEZ or the person receiving such dividend from the rigours of section 115-O(1) of the Act. The conferring of exemption

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPL. RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

TDS liability when payment to a payee is on net of tax basis. 24. The ld. Counsel referring to the provisions of section 115-O(6) submits that sub-section (6) exempt a developer or enterprise of SEZ or the person receiving such dividend from the rigours of section 115-O(1) of the Act. The conferring of exemption

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

TDS liability when payment to a payee is on net of tax basis. 24. The ld. Counsel referring to the provisions of section 115-O(6) submits that sub-section (6) exempt a developer or enterprise of SEZ or the person receiving such dividend from the rigours of section 115-O(1) of the Act. The conferring of exemption

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 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record

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 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record

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 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record