G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in computing the income of assessee in the status of ‘AOP’ instead of ‘charitable society’ as claimed by the appellant and further erred in applying the maximum marginal rate

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in computing the income of assessee in the status of ‘AOP’ instead of ‘charitable society’ as claimed by the appellant and further erred in applying the maximum marginal rate

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

RAMA DEVI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS u/s 40(a)(ia). Against the assessment order, the Assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 30.3.2017 has enhanced the income at Rs. 2,61,15,153/-. Ld. CIT(A), discussed the concept and theory of charitable purposes as defined in section 2(15) and conditions laid down in section 11 to section

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

11. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on the Memorandum explaining provisions introduced in Finance Bill, 2002 with reference to new Clause 10(10CC) which was to the following effect: “Scheme for taxation of perquisites simplified with employer given option to pay tax on behalf of employees 64.1 Under the existing provisions of Section 192 of the Income

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

11. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on the Memorandum explaining provisions introduced in Finance Bill, 2002 with reference to new Clause 10(10CC) which was to the following effect: “Scheme for taxation of perquisites simplified with employer given option to pay tax on behalf of employees 64.1 Under the existing provisions of Section 192 of the Income

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

11. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on the Memorandum explaining provisions introduced in Finance Bill, 2002 with reference to new Clause 10(10CC) which was to the following effect: “Scheme for taxation of perquisites simplified with employer given option to pay tax on behalf of employees 64.1 Under the existing provisions of Section 192 of the Income

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

TDS under Section 194-C of the Act. 11. The above order of the ITAT dated 12th July 2002 was affirmed by this Court by order dated 21st May 2004 in ITA No. 282 of 2002. The Court was of the view that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order dated 12th July 2002 of the ITAT

KREUZ CHALLENGER PTE LTD,SINGAPURE vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

TDS amounting to INR 3 1,33,23,843 as claimed in the return of income filed for the relevant AY. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in erroneously levying Interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. 8 On the facts and circumstances of the case

CHRONICLE PUBLICATION PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (CPC)-TDS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am

5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the present appeals are against the late fees charged under section 234E of the Act for various quarters relating to different assessment years for default in not filing TDS Assessment Year 2013-14 TO 2015-16 returns in time. He stressed that no fee can be levied under section 234E

CHRONICLE PUBLICATION PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (CPC)-TDS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am

5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the present appeals are against the late fees charged under section 234E of the Act for various quarters relating to different assessment years for default in not filing TDS Assessment Year 2013-14 TO 2015-16 returns in time. He stressed that no fee can be levied under section 234E

CHRONICLE PUBLICATION PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (CPC)-TDS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am

5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the present appeals are against the late fees charged under section 234E of the Act for various quarters relating to different assessment years for default in not filing TDS Assessment Year 2013-14 TO 2015-16 returns in time. He stressed that no fee can be levied under section 234E

CHRONICLE PUBLICATION PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (CPC)-TDS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am

5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the present appeals are against the late fees charged under section 234E of the Act for various quarters relating to different assessment years for default in not filing TDS Assessment Year 2013-14 TO 2015-16 returns in time. He stressed that no fee can be levied under section 234E

CHRONICLE PUBLICATION PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (CPC)-TDS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am

5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the present appeals are against the late fees charged under section 234E of the Act for various quarters relating to different assessment years for default in not filing TDS Assessment Year 2013-14 TO 2015-16 returns in time. He stressed that no fee can be levied under section 234E