JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Stay Application No.61/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 3964/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2020-21

144B of the Act is time barred having been passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 144C(13) for completion of assessment. 4. In the alternative to ground no. 3, directions issued by Ld. DRP under section 144C(5) have been issued beyond time limit prescribed under section 144C(12). 5. Without prejudice to the above, assessment proceedings which

RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS Ghaziabad, 2022 (11) TMI 771 - ITAT INDORE (Sl. No. 3 of the case law compendium), and Shivganga Drillers Private Ltd. v. CPC, Income Tax, Indore Bangalore, 2022 (5) TMI 1427 - ITAT Indore (SI. no. 4 of the case law compendium). 11. Ld. AR further stated that in the instant case, there is no basis

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 advertisement expenses, it is submitted that the same was never confronted to the appellant during the course of revisionary proceedings. Even otherwise, due taxes had been deducted on the aforesaid payments, which is evident from the fact that no adverse qualification has been reported in the tax audit report (refer

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) passed on 30th April, 2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), vide order dated 30.04.2021, at an income

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

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

TDS provisions on advertisement expenses, it is submitted that the same was never confronted to the appellant during the course of revisionary proceedings. Even otherwise, due taxes had been deducted on the aforesaid payments, which is evident from the fact that no adverse qualification has been reported in the tax audit report (refer

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment