DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

186 ITD 353 wherein the bench deleted the adhoc disallowance of expenditure made by assessing officer under section 14A where assessing officer made disallowance without establishing the nexus between expenditure and the earning of dividend income. The relevant extract of the decision is as below: “10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available

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)

186 ITR 242 (Bom), the Tribunal was bound to follow the said judgment of the Madras High Court. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Tribunal committed an error in following the said judgment of the Madras High Court. In view of the said decision of the Madras High Court, the only course which the Tribunal could have followed

ACIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S APCO WORLDWIDE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by revenue for A

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. 2010-11

TDS) and obtain his permission for deducting tax at source at lesser amount. In our considered opinion decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable, as the facts are distinguishable. 8.5. It is observed that Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra), on this issue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S APCO WORLDWIDE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by revenue for A

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. 2010-11

TDS) and obtain his permission for deducting tax at source at lesser amount. In our considered opinion decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable, as the facts are distinguishable. 8.5. It is observed that Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra), on this issue

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

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

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

THE NEW VIKASH CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] The New Vikash Co-Op. House Vs Ito, Building Society Ltd., Adv. Vijay Ward-Ii(4), Kumar Gupta, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad. Main Bazar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004. Pan-Aaajt1595P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

TDS was not given while making calculations at the time of assessment u/s 143(3). Order u/s 154 was passed by the AO on 11.02.2014 and refund of Rs 1,84,880/ was issued to the assessee with the prior approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1. Faridabad. 3. Further, Revenue Audit Party raised objection during audit observing

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

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS Interest Income Interest from Sugam from 31.03.2017 of 3 170 investment NCDs Evidenced from Rs.53,76,00,000 26AS Remittance of 12.04.2016- Bank statement evidencing money back to 3 29 & 26 08.11.2016 remittance back to Singapore Singapore Shareholders passed final resolution Final Resolution approving winding up. This marked 20.08.2020 1 186 to Wind Up commencement of liquidation under Singapore

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS Interest Income Interest from Sugam from 31.03.2017 of 3 170 investment NCDs Evidenced from Rs.53,76,00,000 26AS Remittance of 12.04.2016- Bank statement evidencing money back to 3 29 & 26 08.11.2016 remittance back to Singapore Singapore Shareholders passed final resolution Final Resolution approving winding up. This marked 20.08.2020 1 186 to Wind Up commencement of liquidation under Singapore

SANJAY GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 70(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Ld

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasanjay Gupta, Vs. Ito, 402, Mahagun Mosaic Phase-1, Ward-70(1), Sector-4, Sahibabad, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan : Aaepg2995G (Appellant) (Respondent)

186/- was deducted by EIEL which increased in subsequent months. The appellant claimed total TDS amounting to Rs. 12,24,376/- deducted by EIEL. These deducted TDS were not deposited with Central Government’s account (Govt.’s A/c) by EIEL. As the TDS entries were not reflected in Form-26AS, claim of TDS was not Sanjay Gupta 3 granted

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

186 (Kar.). However, the ld. Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not furnished any statement regarding late deposit of TDS. 34. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition after observing and holding as under: “33.10 I have considered the observations of Special Auditors as well as of the Assessing Officer and submission of the appellant. It is seen

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

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

186 (Kar.). However, the ld. Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not furnished any statement regarding late deposit of TDS. 34. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition after observing and holding as under: “33.10 I have considered the observations of Special Auditors as well as of the Assessing Officer and submission of the appellant. It is seen

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

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 26: Risk prima facie passes with property:— ‘Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller’s risk until the property therein is transferred to the buyer, but when the property therein is transferred to the buyer, the goods are at the buyer’s risk whether delivery has been made or not……..” 7.5 We find that though