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

section 271C is barred by limitation". 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 505(SC) (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mitsui & Co. Ltd [2004] 140 TAXMAN 430 (DELHI) (iii) Dex Travel (P.) Ltd [2008] 172 TAXMAN 142 (DELHI) (iv) Cadbury India

M/S PREMIER BOOK CO.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2007-08

TDS deposited in view of Explanation 2 to section 140 A (i). Thus Ld.CIT was of the view that, assessing

BENETTON INDIA P.LTD,GURGAON vs. JCIT TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

140 taxmann.com 445, held that TDS on CAM charges shall deducted at 2% under section 194C. In the given case

USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal and stay application of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS amount to defalcation. In this connection, guidance is derived from circular no. 5 dated 03.06.2010 of CBDT as follows:- "50.3 However, no time-limits have been prescribed for order under sub-section (1) of section 201 where :— (a) the deductor has deducted but not deposited the tax deducted at source, as this would be a case of defalcation

STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS PTY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kant

140 (MUM) vi) D.D.I.T v. Banque Indosuez 19 ITR (TRIB) 463 (MUM) To the best of our knowledge as on date there is no conflicting judgment or any ruling in favour of the Revenue, hence on this ground along this issue should be decided in favour of the assessee. I. Interest paid is exempt u/sec

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

TDS under section 201(1 A) of the Act, in respect of provision made for commission to directors. 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the assessing officer levying penalty of Rs.36,70,312 for alleged failure to deduct

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

TDS under section 201(1 A) of the Act, in respect of provision made for commission to directors. 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the assessing officer levying penalty of Rs.36,70,312 for alleged failure to deduct

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

TDS under section 201(1 A) of the Act, in respect of provision made for commission to directors. 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the assessing officer levying penalty of Rs.36,70,312 for alleged failure to deduct

M/S. SPICE MOBILITY LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

TDS under section 201(1 A) of the Act, in respect of provision made for commission to directors. 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the assessing officer levying penalty of Rs.36,70,312 for alleged failure to deduct

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

ITO TDS (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA vs. M/S CONTINENTAL INDIA LTD.,, MEERUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2014-15] & [Assessment Year: 2015-16] The I.T.O [Tds] Vs. Continental India Ltd International Taxation Nh 58, Meerut Roorke Road Noida Modipuram, Meerut Pan: Aafcm 5366 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019

section 206AA(I) deals exclusively with the rates of TDS. 3. At the very outset, the ld. AR stated that the impugned issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Emmsons International Ltd Vs. DCIT 171 ITD 140

ITO TDS (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA vs. M/S CONTINENTAL INDIA LTD.,, MEERUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2014-15] & [Assessment Year: 2015-16] The I.T.O [Tds] Vs. Continental India Ltd International Taxation Nh 58, Meerut Roorke Road Noida Modipuram, Meerut Pan: Aafcm 5366 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019

section 206AA(I) deals exclusively with the rates of TDS. 3. At the very outset, the ld. AR stated that the impugned issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Emmsons International Ltd Vs. DCIT 171 ITD 140

CIT vs. BONANZA PORTFOLIO LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

140 days in refilling of the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, who is present on advance notice, states that she has no objection in case the delay are condoned. In view of the statement made, we condone the delay in filing and re-filing of the appeal. The applications are disposed of. ITA No. 1295/2011 Revenue has impugned

CIT vs. BONANZA PORTFOLIO LTD

Appeal is dismissed

140 days in refilling of the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, who is present on advance notice, states that she has no objection in case the delay are condoned. In view of the statement made, we condone the delay in filing and re-filing of the appeal. The applications are disposed of. ITA No. 1295/2011 Revenue has impugned

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.:

140/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was issued and complied with. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 27/01/2014, the Assessing Officer made certain additions/disallowances and assessed the total income at Rs.1,88,21,220/-. Aggrieved, the assessee

CIT vs. ENGINEERS INDIA LTD

In the result, the appeal is

TDS credit was also claimed. To make good the shortage, the assessee paid ₹2.60 Crores by way of tax on self-assessment. The AO determined the income at ₹1.27 Crores and, thus, raised a further demand of ₹1.76 Crores by way of notice under Section 156. It appears that refund was due to the assessee for the assessment year

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-2, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Brij Gopal Construction Company P. Ltd., Vs Acit, A-7/2, Shivaji Apartment, Sector-14, Special Range-2, Rohini, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aadcb7702J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Monika Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.813/Del/2022 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-2/10198/2019-20 Dated 07.03.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 09.12.2017 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Spl. Range-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 199 permits assessee to claim TDS in the year of deduction where the consistent method of accounting has been followed and accepted by Assessing Officer in earlier years. During the year the amount of work executed Rs. 94,73,40,679/- far exceeds the amount of Mobilization Advance Received Rs. 8,90,18,261/- received during the year

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