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

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

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194H does not apply as mechanism to deduct TDS fails. Reliance is placed on: i.M. S. Hameed Vs. Director of State Lotteries (249 ITR 186) (Ker.) as subsequently affirmed by the Divisional Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court; ii.CIT Vs. Qatar Airways (332 ITR 253) (Bom.); iii. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ACIT (21 taxmann.com 225) (Trib-Mumbai

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194H does not apply as mechanism to deduct TDS fails. Reliance is placed on: i.M. S. Hameed Vs. Director of State Lotteries (249 ITR 186) (Ker.) as subsequently affirmed by the Divisional Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court; ii.CIT Vs. Qatar Airways (332 ITR 253) (Bom.); iii. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ACIT (21 taxmann.com 225) (Trib-Mumbai

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194H does not apply as mechanism to deduct TDS fails. Reliance is placed on: i.M. S. Hameed Vs. Director of State Lotteries (249 ITR 186) (Ker.) as subsequently affirmed by the Divisional Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court; ii.CIT Vs. Qatar Airways (332 ITR 253) (Bom.); iii. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ACIT (21 taxmann.com 225) (Trib-Mumbai

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

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/िद"ी /2019(िन.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

TDS is required to be deducted in respect of payments to ABN Amro. 8. Both sides heard. The short issue for our consideration in the second round of litigation before us is the taxability of interest in the light of factual findings on tax residency status of beneficial owner of the interest paid by the assessee and also the assessee

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

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

TDS) v. OCM India Ltd. – [2018] 408 ITR 369 (P&H) v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: [2018] 402 ITR 539 (Raj. HC) 34. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the appellant was under the bonafide belief that no tax was required to be deducted there from. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the above, the decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra) would support the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. In view of the totality of above facts, we are unable to uphold the view of the TPO that

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS Rs.712257/-; 18. Deletion of addition on account of reclassification of income from income from house property to income from business and profession.- Rs.9,40,52,455/-; 19. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of notional rent/additional annual letting value in respect of the vacant property. - Rs. 12,28,340/-; 20. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS Rs.712257/-; 18. Deletion of addition on account of reclassification of income from income from house property to income from business and profession.- Rs.9,40,52,455/-; 19. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of notional rent/additional annual letting value in respect of the vacant property. - Rs. 12,28,340/-; 20. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance

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

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

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)

173; [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). prospecting lease. Reference has also been made to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules, 1959, framed under section 5 of the aforesaid Act. Under rule 4 of the said Rules no person can prospect for petroleum except pursuant to a petroleum exploration license (PEL) granted under the Rules and no person can mine petroleum

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

TDS is required to be made payment. 16. That CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the provision of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in respect of disallowances made y disallowance are unjust, unlawful and without any legal basis. 17. That the explanations given, evidence produced and material placed and made available on record have not been properly

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

TDS is required to be made payment. 16. That CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the provision of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in respect of disallowances made y disallowance are unjust, unlawful and without any legal basis. 17. That the explanations given, evidence produced and material placed and made available on record have not been properly

GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Granite Services Dcit International India Private Vs Circle-10(2), Limited, Building No.7A, New Delhi 5Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Sector -25A, Gurgaon-122002 Pan Aaccg3374Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

173. 3. Since the assessee had undertaken international transaction with its AE’s, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the TPO u/s. 92 CA (3) of the IT Act. The TPO during the T. P. assessment proceedings observed that assessee has undertaken the following international transactions which it is AE’s during the year. S. No. Nature of Transactions

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

TDS) v. OCM India Ltd. - [2018] 408 ITR 369 (P&H) - Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: [2018] 402 ITR 539 (Raj. HC) Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the assessing officer erred in disallowing 100% of the impugned expenditure incurred, instead of restricting the disallowance to 30% of the said total expenditure, in terms