M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals filed by the appellant are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Tds) And Another Respondent :- Canara Bank Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar,Praveen Kumar Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. This appeal, which has been filed under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 19611 at the instance of the Department, was admitted on the following question of law : "(A) Whether the ITAT as well

M/S DENA BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals filed by the appellant are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Tds) And Another Respondent :- Canara Bank Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar,Praveen Kumar Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. This appeal, which has been filed under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 19611 at the instance of the Department, was admitted on the following question of law : "(A) Whether the ITAT as well

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S I.T.C. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

194-I of the Act. In paras 14 and 15 of the said decision, the Court observed as under: “14. From the reading of this Section, it becomes clear that TDS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S I.T.C. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

194-I of the Act. In paras 14 and 15 of the said decision, the Court observed as under: “14. From the reading of this Section, it becomes clear that TDS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SINGH ENTERPRISES

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

194-I of the Act. In paras 14 and 15 of the said decision, the Court observed as under: “14. From the reading of this Section, it becomes clear that TDS

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS under section 1941 of the Act in respect of minimum guarantee expenses. 3.1 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the arrangement entered into by the Appellant requiring payment of minimum guarantee charges to hotel operators was in the nature of rent falling within the scope of section 194

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS under section 1941 of the Act in respect of minimum guarantee expenses. 3.1 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the arrangement entered into by the Appellant requiring payment of minimum guarantee charges to hotel operators was in the nature of rent falling within the scope of section 194

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS under section 1941 of the Act in respect of minimum guarantee expenses. 3.1 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the arrangement entered into by the Appellant requiring payment of minimum guarantee charges to hotel operators was in the nature of rent falling within the scope of section 194

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS under section 1941 of the Act in respect of minimum guarantee expenses. 3.1 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the arrangement entered into by the Appellant requiring payment of minimum guarantee charges to hotel operators was in the nature of rent falling within the scope of section 194

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

TDS" under section 194; surcharge is an additional levy on the tax itself under section 1 IB. The fact that

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

TDS" under section 194; surcharge is an additional levy on the tax itself under section 1 IB. The fact that

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

TDS" under section 194; surcharge is an additional levy on the tax itself under section 1 IB. The fact that

DIRECTOR OF NCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

TDS provisions of the Act. 10. Section 194-I reads as follows: "Rent. 194-I. Any person, not being an individual

AJNARA INDIA LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), WARD- 49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S. Ajnara India Ltd., Vs. Ito, 502, Plot No. 17, Tds Ward-49(1) Sachdeva Corporate Towers, New Delhi. Comm. Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092 (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS provisions of section 194-I and its liability to pay interest under section 201(1A). Without prejudice, the assessee

SH. SURENDRA KUMAR WADHWA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Surendra Kumar Wadhwa, C/O- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -20(2), Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, 14, School New Delhi Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aabpw0250F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Order Dated 27/01/2014 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2000-10, Raising Following Grounds: 1. That, The Assessment Order & The Appellate Order Are Based On Conjucture & Surmises & Against The Facts Of The Case & The Law Laid Down In This Respect. 2. That, The Assessing Officer & The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Taxing The Commission Payable Of Rs. 4,08,080 In This Year, While This Amount Belongs To The Subsequent Year When The Bills Were Raised & The Amount Was Received. The Appellant Has Never Offered To Tax In This Year Rs. 4,08,080. The Submission Of The Assessing Officer In This Respect Is His Words & Not The Words Of The Appellant. The Affidavit Can Be Submitted For The Confirmation Of This Submission. 3. That, The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Considering The Loan Processing Fees As A Capital Expenditure Instead Of Revenue Expenditure. The Loan Processing Fees Payable To Bank Is A Bank Charges For Rendering Services For Granting The Loan For Car For Business Purpose. This Amount Cannot Be Considered As Capital Expenditure. This Is Revenue Expenditure. 4. That, The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Saying That The Amount Of Rs. 3,90,579 May Be Reduced From The Income For The A.Y. 2010- 11 If Such Amount Has Indeed Been Taxed Twice.

194-I, section 194J, section 194K, section 195, section 196A, section 196B, section 196C and section 196D to be treated as an income received. The purpose of section 198 is not to carve out an exception to section 145 of the Act. Section 199 of the Act has two objectives - one to declare the tax deducted at source as payment

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kant

section 194-I 9 I.T.As. No.5795 & 6540/DEL/2015 of the Act. Therefore, such payments are not liable for TDS under section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kant

section 194-I 9 I.T.As. No.5795 & 6540/DEL/2015 of the Act. Therefore, such payments are not liable for TDS under section

VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD WHICH MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD AND NOW KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LTD),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-78(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Known As Vs Acit, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.) Circle-78(1), A-19, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi,. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaacb2100P Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Circle-78(1), Known As Vodafone Mobile New Delhi,. Services Ltd.) A-19, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Vibhu Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr & Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024

TDS, Bangalore vs. Vodafone South Ltd. (2014) 72 taxman.com 347 (Kar), which has decided the issue in favour of the service providers has been followed in the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd. (supra). Appreciating the order of the CIT(A), it comes up that following the Hon’ble Karnataka