KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

2) of the I.T. Act, and A.O. have been vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. In that event, if there is any dispute of the jurisdiction of the A.O, such question will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 124 of the Income Tax Act. However, in the present case, the Addl. CIT, Range

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

124)/10000 = -89336 per share 14. In view of above, it is clear that during AY 2013-14, shares were issued at a price more than FMV of shares of the assessee company. Thus, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) are applicable with reference to shares issued during AY 2013-14. Since 2,40,83,333 shares

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

124)/10000 = -89336 per share 14. In view of above, it is clear that during AY 2013-14, shares were issued at a price more than FMV of shares of the assessee company. Thus, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) are applicable with reference to shares issued during AY 2013-14. Since 2,40,83,333 shares

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

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

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

TDS. The case of the assessee was referred by the ld AO to ld TPO for benchmarking the international transaction of the assessee. The ld TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 30.07.2021 proposing an arm‟s length price (ALP) of Rs. 5,25,89,297/- in respect of provision of marketing support services by the assessee

REETA SINGHAL,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

TDS statement [26AS]. In the absence of explanation of assessee, addition of Rs.55,700/- was made. The A.O. also noted that in the return assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,10,714/- under section 80 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the absence of documentary evidences, A.O. made addition of Rs.1,10,714/- and completed the assessment under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

124 2. Management services (paid) 21,97,584 3. Provision of IT enabled services (received) 18,14,42,916 4. Reimbursement (received) 7,00,00,419 5. Reimbursement (paid) 3,96,753 5. Therefore, reference was made by Ld. assessing officer[hereinafter referred to as “AO”] to the LD Transfer Pricing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “TPO”] to determine

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit the learned CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee from the records and allow the tax credit. However, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit the learned CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee from the records and allow the tax credit. However, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

TDS provisions on the same. 40. In this regard, it is submitted that as explained above, the appellant is engaged in the business of trading activities on the online marketplace. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (‘ASSPL’) operates an online marketplace (www.amazon.in), which the appellant utilises for the purpose of selling goods. These payments incurred by the appellant are termed

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

124 TTJ 531, decided by ITAT Chennai (refer Page 540-551 of Paper Book Vol-2), the assessee engaged in development of software while following project completion method raised invoices on basis of payment milestones while revenue earned by the assessee from software and consultancy services was recognized on delivery of goods/services. The said method was in accordance with

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

124 TTJ 531, decided by ITAT Chennai (refer Page 540-551 of Paper Book Vol-2), the assessee engaged in development of software while following project completion method raised invoices on basis of payment milestones while revenue earned by the assessee from software and consultancy services was recognized on delivery of goods/services. The said method was in accordance with

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

124 TTJ 531, decided by ITAT Chennai (refer Page 540-551 of Paper Book Vol-2), the assessee engaged in development of software while following project completion method raised invoices on basis of payment milestones while revenue earned by the assessee from software and consultancy services was recognized on delivery of goods/services. The said method was in accordance with

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

124 TTJ 531, decided by ITAT Chennai (refer Page 540-551 of Paper Book Vol-2), the assessee engaged in development of software while following project completion method raised invoices on basis of payment milestones while revenue earned by the assessee from software and consultancy services was recognized on delivery of goods/services. The said method was in accordance with

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

124 TTJ 531, decided by ITAT Chennai (refer Page 540-551 of Paper Book Vol-2), the assessee engaged in development of software while following project completion method raised invoices on basis of payment milestones while revenue earned by the assessee from software and consultancy services was recognized on delivery of goods/services. The said method was in accordance with

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

TDS provisions on the same. 40. In this regard, it is submitted that as explained above, the appellant is engaged in the business of trading activities on the online marketplace. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (‘ASSPL') operates an online marketplace (www.amazon.in), which the appellant utilises for the purpose of selling goods. These payments incurred by the appellant are termed