SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

160 against the claim of the assessee of ₹ 7,710,000. With respect to the claim of the deduction u/s 54 of The Income Tax Act with respect to the flat at Mumbai and the cost of construction of residential house property at Delhi, the learned CIT – A held that amendment to Section 54 of the act with effect from

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

160 against the claim of the assessee of ₹ 7,710,000. With respect to the claim of the deduction u/s 54 of The Income Tax Act with respect to the flat at Mumbai and the cost of construction of residential house property at Delhi, the learned CIT – A held that amendment to Section 54 of the act with effect from

M/S BHARTI HEXACOM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and department’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra: & Shri A.T. Varkey:

TDS provisions cannot come in: Under section 5, all residents and non- residents are chargeable in respect of income which accrues or is deemed to accrue in India or is received in India. Non-residents who are not assessable in respect of income accruing and received abroad are rendered chargeable under section 5 (2) (b) in respect of income deemed

M/S. AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 27 | P a g e AT & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt Ltd V DCIT ITA No 2538/Del/2014 (A) & ITA NO 2518/Del/2014 (D) A Y 2009-10 36(1)(iii) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Hence, the above finding would squarely apply to the present ground also. In the result the said ground

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nITA Nos.319 & 320/Del/2025\nITA Nos.577& 578/Del/2025\nITA

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

160 & 161/2015 vide order dated 26"' August 2015 is relevant to the case in hand. Paras 13 to 16 of this order is reproduced hereinbelow In view of the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court fsupra/ the insertion of Page 25 of 59 second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is declaratory

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

1) dated 30.06.2022. 2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal before us, it had raised a preliminary ground vide ground Nos. 2 and 3 that though the assessment order passed by the ld AO pursuant to the directions of the ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is barred by limitation. We deem it fit to address this preliminary

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CB RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

160 2,69,01,560 2006-07 1,02,42,92,452/- 18,53,73,829/- 90,34,880 3,81,76,000 4,72,10,880 2007-08 1,55,45,13,626/- 24,86,29,998/- 1,17,69,000 2,89,55,000 4,07,24,000 5.5 The above salary including incentive has been assessment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.B. RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

160 2,69,01,560 2006-07 1,02,42,92,452/- 18,53,73,829/- 90,34,880 3,81,76,000 4,72,10,880 2007-08 1,55,45,13,626/- 24,86,29,998/- 1,17,69,000 2,89,55,000 4,07,24,000 5.5 The above salary including incentive has been assessment

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

160/- to the total income of the Appellant on account of disallowance of payment of export commission under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 ITA No. 3865/Del./2015 21. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and the Hon’ble DRP grossly erred in not appreciating that the marketing support service were rendered outside India

M/S. CBRE SOUTH ASIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10

160 2,69,01,560 143 (1) iv) 2006-07 3,81,76,000 4,72,10,880 143(3) (

KGL NETWORK (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 14(2), NEW DELHI

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

1) for several assessment years, in which, A.O. accepted similar claim of assessee-company. PB-1031 to 1047 are the 28 ITA.No.301/Del./2018 M/s. KGL Network (P) Ltd., Delhi. copy of the notice under section 133(6) from ITO, TDS, Ward- (International Taxation), Dated 17.02.2010 along with submissions of the assessee-company and details, in which, the assessee-company

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

1 Surat Vs. Movaliya Bhikhulbhai Balabhai SLP(C) No.018495 / 2017 22. Decision in the case of Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO-TDS 2, Rajkot Vs. Muktanadgiri Maheshgiri vs. District Development 23. Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Hisar Vs. Hari Singh Saini in ITA No.1539/Del/2020 24. In the case of Mahender pal Narang Vs. CBDT

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 held the following: “We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim

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

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nand 'attributable to'. Further they held that

ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES GROUP,EHIOPIA vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-1(2)(2), DELHI

TDS u/s\n195. However, the AO and CIT rejected the claim of the assessee.\nThe High Court (228 ITR 564) held that the said payment was not\nassessable u/s 9(1)(i) but that it was assessable u/s 9(1)(vii) of the\nAct. The assessee claimed that s.9(1)(vii) of the Act was\nconstitutionally invalid as it taxed

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nITA Nos.319 & 320/Del/2025\nITA Nos.577& 578/Del/2025\nITA