DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

5,58,280/- was paid on 27/28.09.2012. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the affidavit of Mr. Ashok Kumar Goyal, CA (Hisar) dated ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 17.11.2021 also confirms and supports that the ITR for AY 2012-13 was uploaded on 28.09.2012, but, acknowledgement could not be generated due to technical problems in the Department’s portal. The ld. Counsel submitted

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

5,58,280/- was paid on 27/28.09.2012. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the affidavit of Mr. Ashok Kumar Goyal, CA (Hisar) dated ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 17.11.2021 also confirms and supports that the ITR for AY 2012-13 was uploaded on 28.09.2012, but, acknowledgement could not be generated due to technical problems in the Department’s portal. The ld. Counsel submitted

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

5,58,280/- was paid on 27/28.09.2012. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the affidavit of Mr. Ashok Kumar Goyal, CA (Hisar) dated ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 17.11.2021 also confirms and supports that the ITR for AY 2012-13 was uploaded on 28.09.2012, but, acknowledgement could not be generated due to technical problems in the Department’s portal. The ld. Counsel submitted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, NEW DELHI vs. RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS RITIKA PVT. LTD.), NEW DELHI

TDS returns showing the names of the job\nworkers and copies of Form No. 26AS.\n\nPB_906-907 & 902-905 is the copy of ledger account of M/s Sai\nExports in the books of assessee's company & vice versa, which\nshows that job work activities done by the said job worker during\nthe year under appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS RITIKA PVT. LTD.), NEW DELHI

TDS returns showing the names of the job\nworkers and copies of Form No. 26AS.\n\nPB_906-907 & 902-905 is the copy of ledger account of M/s Sai\nExports in the books of assessee's company & vice versa, which\nshows that job work activities done by the said job worker during\nthe year under appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XIII vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

5 of 20 Bombay High Court in Shyam Narayan and Brothers (supra) does not lay down or propound any ratio applicable to the question of law raised in the present case. The said decision does not examine or affirm the ratio by the Full Bench decision of the tribunal in Bharati Shipyard Limited (supra). Bombay High Court records that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAHUL JUNEJA, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. O.P. Kant & Sh. K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. Sh. Rahul Juneja, Circle 31(1), New Delhi Plot No. 29, Dlf Indl. Area, Phase-I, Faridabad Pan : Aafpj2485F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

139(5) of the Income Tax Act, particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 ? 3. The appellant cra\/zs leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT." 2. Briefly

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

139(1) in respect of such income. Accordingly, the Appellant’s non-filing of returns for the relevant treated as a default. This is in addition, the recorded reasons for reopening do not disclose any tangible material evidencing escapement of income under a chargeable head, nor do they record any satisfaction as to residence under Section 6(3) for either

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

139(1) in respect of such income. Accordingly, the Appellant’s non-filing of returns for the relevant treated as a default. This is in addition, the recorded reasons for reopening do not disclose any tangible material evidencing escapement of income under a chargeable head, nor do they record any satisfaction as to residence under Section 6(3) for either

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

5. We note in this factual backdrop that the instant issue of the assessee’s section 80IA(4) deduction claim entitlement is a recurring one between the parties. And the tribunal’s last order dated 07.02.2023 in departmental appeal ITA Nos. 5701 to 5704/Del/2016, in assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, has upheld the assessee’s claim as under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TALBROS (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid.” (emphasis supplied) 5. Recently, we had occasion to deal with the said unamended and amended provisions and elucidate upon the section in ITA No. 65/2013 titled Commissioner of Income Tax-XIII vs. Rajinder Kumar decided

Commissioner of Income Tax XIII

139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid.” (emphasis supplied) 5. Recently, we had occasion to deal with the said unamended and amended provisions and elucidate upon the section in ITA No. 65/2013 titled Commissioner of Income Tax-XIII vs. Rajinder Kumar decided

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

TDS details, the return could not be filed within time limit under section 139(1) but it was filed within time limit under section 139(4). There are various decisions of different high courts wherein it has been consistently held that section 139(4) is extension of 139(1) and section 139 is to be read as a whole

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

TDS details, the return could not be filed within time limit under section 139(1) but it was filed within time limit under section 139(4). There are various decisions of different high courts wherein it has been consistently held that section 139(4) is extension of 139(1) and section 139 is to be read as a whole

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

TDS details, the return could not be filed within time limit under section 139(1) but it was filed within time limit under section 139(4). There are various decisions of different high courts wherein it has been consistently held that section 139(4) is extension of 139(1) and section 139 is to be read as a whole

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

5. Section 40(a)(i) of the Act is applicable or not. 6. Centrica case/judgment has been approved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Northern Operating case as well and therefore, is has to be considered, whether squarely applicable to the instant case or not. 18.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that the Assessee by making colourable devices

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

5. Further, this Court is of the opinion that in cases of short deduction of TDS, disallowance under section40a(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal [2014] 46 taxmann.com 444/361ITR

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

5. Further, this Court is of the opinion that in cases of short deduction of TDS, disallowance under section40a(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal [2014] 46 taxmann.com 444/361ITR