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

M/S. SJP INFRACON LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3102/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sjp Infracon Ltd., Vs Dcit, A-133, Sector-63, Tds, Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaocs6480K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2022

TDS – Kanpur Vs. Central Bank of India, where the arguments has already been concluded and judgment is reserved. 9 SJP Infracon Ltd. 9. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that Noida/Greater Noida is not entitled for the benefit of Section 194A(3)(iii

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 from the lease rent as it has been constituted as an authority underSection 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976. W.P.(C) 8085/2014 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 5 of 22 (iii) Noida Development Authority is a notified institution under section 194A

THE BRANCH MANAGER,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble & The Branch Manager Vs Addl. Cit (Tds) Axis Bank Ltd. Ghaziabad No. B2-B3, Sector-16 Noida Aaacu2414K (Respondent) (Appellant)

TDS u/s 194A because the NOIDA Authority and Greater NOIDA Authority fall in exempted category provided in Section 194A(3)(iii

THE BRANCH MANAGER,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble & The Branch Manager Vs Addl. Cit (Tds) Axis Bank Ltd. Ghaziabad No. B2-B3, Sector-16 Noida Aaacu2414K (Respondent) (Appellant)

TDS u/s 194A because the NOIDA Authority and Greater NOIDA Authority fall in exempted category provided in Section 194A(3)(iii

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORP. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and COs of the assessee are allowed

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

3) In case of Sahara India Airlines Ltd, for Assessment Year 1996-97 the ITO, TDS Ward-2, Lucknow passed an order u/s 201(1A) of the Act for which the appeal was decided by the CIT(A)-III, Lucknow on 12.03.1998. In this case also the Assessing Officer, Central Circle, Lucknow did not raise the objection that proper jurisdiction

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORP. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and COs of the assessee are allowed

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

3) In case of Sahara India Airlines Ltd, for Assessment Year 1996-97 the ITO, TDS Ward-2, Lucknow passed an order u/s 201(1A) of the Act for which the appeal was decided by the CIT(A)-III, Lucknow on 12.03.1998. In this case also the Assessing Officer, Central Circle, Lucknow did not raise the objection that proper jurisdiction

ATS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 194A(3)(iii)(f) and, hence, there is no obligation for deduction of tax at source. Consequently, the ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT order passed u/s 201(1) was set aside. Similar view has been taken by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO (TDS

ACIT, CIRCLE- 78(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

TDS in View of provisions of section 194A(3)(iii)(f) read with notification no. 3489 dated 20.10.1970, and ignoring

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIKAS VASUDEVA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2012-13

III of section 3 of 194A of I.T. Act. Therefore, the assessee is not liable to treat as defaulter as per proviso 40(a) of I.T. Act and A.O. was not justified in disallowing the interest payment to the bank without deduction tax. Accordingly, the addition made on account of non deduction of TDS

CELEBRITY REALCON (P) LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-49(3), DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandracelebrity Realcon (P) Ltd. Vs Ito 10, New Rajdhani Enclave, Ward 49(3), Delhi Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 Pan: Aadcc8384M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amit Goel, Adv, Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue By Ms.Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 Order

section 194A (3) (iii) (f) and, hence, there is no obligation for deduction of tax at source. Consequently, the order passed u/s 201(1) was set aside. Similar view has been taken by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO (TDS

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

3. Similar to the Percept retainership fee (Ground 1), the gift of a watch has no measurable or quantifiable connection to incremental revenue or profit. While the assessee claims the film was a "super-hit," it produced no data on: (i) revenue attributable to the film, (ii) profit margin, (iii) whether the director's compensation was pre-determined or contingent

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

3. Similar to the Percept retainership fee (Ground 1), the gift of a watch has no measurable or quantifiable connection to incremental revenue or profit. While the assessee claims the film was a "super-hit," it produced no data on: (i) revenue attributable to the film, (ii) profit margin, (iii) whether the director's compensation was pre-determined or contingent

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

3. Similar to the Percept retainership fee (Ground 1), the gift of a watch has no measurable or quantifiable connection to incremental revenue or profit. While the assessee claims the film was a "super-hit," it produced no data on: (i) revenue attributable to the film, (ii) profit margin, (iii) whether the director's compensation was pre-determined or contingent

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. MODESTY GARMENTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Acit Vs. M/S Modesty Garments, Circle-28(1), B-304, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aaafm1598F (Appellant) (Respondent)

194A(3)(iv) of the Act which read as under:- “(3): The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply 0) (i) ......... (ii) ......... (iii) .......... (iv) To such income credited or paid by a firm to a partner of the firm ” 8.5 In these circumstances also the basis of disallowance of the AO does not stand to reason and is therefore

M/S. YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GREATER NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2010-11

3)(iii) (f) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) were applicable. However, the AO (TDS) did not accept the contention of the assessee and proceeded to treat the assessee as an ‘assessee in default’ in terms of section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source u/s 194A

ACIT, CIRCLE- 78(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

TDS in view of provisions of section 194A(3)(iii)(f) read with Notification No. 3489 dated 20.10.1970, and ignoring