YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

iv)** (v) any sum payable by the employer, whether directly or through a fund, other than a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or a Deposit-linked Insurance Fund established under section 3G of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or, as the case may be, section 6C of the Employees

CIT vs. ISAO SAKAI

The appeals stand dismissed

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

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

CIT vs. ISAO SAKAI

The appeals stand dismissed

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

CIT vs. YUJI HORIKAWA

The appeals stand dismissed

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

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

CIT vs. YOSHIMI KAMANO

The appeals stand dismissed

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

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

CIT vs. YOSHIMI KAMANO

The appeals stand dismissed

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

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 :

iv) of the Act on gross interest received, the AO has completed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessing officer has determined the total income at Rs 25682162/- by making the addition of Rs 2,39,47720/-. 4. Aggrieved the order of the assessing officer the assessee has filed the appeal before

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

iv) cases or classes of cases. Section 124(1) has relevance to territorial jurisdiction. If area wise jurisdiction has been conferred on the Assessing Officer then a person carrying on business or profession must find out the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the place within which business or profession is being carried on. If the assessee be a person

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

iv) cases or classes of cases. Section 124(1) has relevance to territorial jurisdiction. If area wise jurisdiction has been conferred on the Assessing Officer then a person carrying on business or profession must find out the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the place within which business or profession is being carried on. If the assessee be a person

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

TDS) @ 10 per cent only on amount of Rs.13,43,02,195/- which is the interest portion and the remaining amount of Rs.3,85,10,725 being enhanced value and solatium not been considered for deduction of tax at source. Hence it is clear that the authority has not considered the entire amount as enhanced value of compensation attributable

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

IV & V GROUND VI: ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in holding that the activity carried out by the Appellant is in the nature of trade, commerce or business and accordingly, it is hit by the proviso to section 2

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

iv) He further noted that valuer in his report dated 27.12.2012 has mentioned the value of the shares of investment made by the assessee company in Mail Today News Paper Pvt. Ltd. has been valued under DCF method and balance all the assets are valued at book value. However, DCF method would not be applicable to compute the value

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

iv) He further noted that valuer in his report dated 27.12.2012 has mentioned the value of the shares of investment made by the assessee company in Mail Today News Paper Pvt. Ltd. has been valued under DCF method and balance all the assets are valued at book value. However, DCF method would not be applicable to compute the value

CIT vs. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

17(1)(iv) and (3)(ii), it can be said that „advantage‟ in terms of payment of money received by the employee from the employer in relation to or in addition to any salary or wages would be covered by the inclusive definition of the word „salary‟. Because of the inclusive meaning given to the phrase “profits in lieu

CIT vs. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD

The appeals are allowed

17(1)(iv) and (3)(ii), it can be said that „advantage‟ in terms of payment of money received by the employee from the employer in relation to or in addition to any salary or wages would be covered by the inclusive definition of the word „salary‟. Because of the inclusive meaning given to the phrase “profits in lieu

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANIPAT vs. DINESH KAUSHIK, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Dinesh Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Panipat Vpo Baljattan, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Awjpk9483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

17 he treated the interest received under section 28 of the 1894 Act as income from other sources and claimed deduction for 50% as per section 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

iv-a), the income is to be assessed u/s 44BB.” 11. Therefore we hold that services rendered by the assessee falls within the ambit of provision of section 44BB of the act and not as Royalty or fees for technical services. In view of this ground Nos. 1 to 5 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 12. Ground

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAMESH KUMAR PABBI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit Vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Circle – 62(1), A-41, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aanpp 5995 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr.D.R. Revenue By Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

17,93,339 (179) (175) (175) iv) 2013-14 18,20,197 Nil 18,20,197 (12) (10) (10) 21.3 Therefore it is held that transaction between sister concerns in normal course of business are commercial transactions and thus otherwise too do not constitute deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 21.4 It is also noted that