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

194C and 0.244 if exceeding Rs. 10 lacs, etc.) and that when the assessee's deposits are viewed inclusively of surcharge, the amount is adequate. However, surcharge is not part of "TDS" under section 194; surcharge is an additional levy on the tax itself under section 1

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

194C and 0.244 if exceeding Rs. 10 lacs, etc.) and that when the assessee's deposits are viewed inclusively of surcharge, the amount is adequate. However, surcharge is not part of "TDS" under section 194; surcharge is an additional levy on the tax itself under section 1

M/S TATA PROJECTS LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4403/Del/2016 (A.Y 2014-15) & I.T.A .No.-4404/Del/2016 (A.Y 2015-16)

Section 194C (6) of the Income tax Act are not applicable to the deductor and a deductor is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194C. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that the deductor failed to deduct TDS u/s 201(1

M/S TATA PROJECTS LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4403/Del/2016 (A.Y 2014-15) & I.T.A .No.-4404/Del/2016 (A.Y 2015-16)

Section 194C (6) of the Income tax Act are not applicable to the deductor and a deductor is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194C. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that the deductor failed to deduct TDS u/s 201(1

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)

1), Sections 4, 5, 9, 90, 91 as well as the provisions of DTAA are also relevant, while applying tax deduction at source provisions. Reference to ITO (TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid any future hassles for both resident as well as non-resident

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

1) of sub-section (2) of section 120 or any other provisions of this Act. (underlying by me). ] Therefore, it is clear that an Assessing Officer derives his jurisdiction from the orders passed by the competent authority in this regard and he cannot travel beyond the jurisdiction assigned to him. 17. An important aspect which is not to be forgotten

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

1) of sub-section (2) of section 120 or any other provisions of this Act. (underlying by me). ] Therefore, it is clear that an Assessing Officer derives his jurisdiction from the orders passed by the competent authority in this regard and he cannot travel beyond the jurisdiction assigned to him. 17. An important aspect which is not to be forgotten

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

1), Sections 4, 5, 9, 90, 91 as well as the provisions of DTAA are also relevant, while applying tax deduction at source provisions. Reference to ITO (TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid any future hassles for both resident as well as non-resident

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

1), Sections 4, 5, 9, 90, 91 as well as the provisions of DTAA are also relevant, while applying tax deduction at source provisions. Reference to ITO (TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non- resident or by the resident payer is to avoid any future hassles for both resident as well as non-resident

CONNAUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANTS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-73(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

1) of the Act, for short deduction of tax at source @2%, i.e. u/s.194C instead of @10% u/s 194-I of the Act. 12. Issue involved qua the aforesaid controversy lies in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether the CAM charges paid by the assessee were liable for deduction of tax at source u/s.194-I, i.e., @10% or u/s 194C

CONNAUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-73(1), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

1) of the Act, for short deduction of tax at source @2%, i.e. u/s.194C instead of @10% u/s 194-I of the Act. 12. Issue involved qua the aforesaid controversy lies in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether the CAM charges paid by the assessee were liable for deduction of tax at source u/s.194-I, i.e., @10% or u/s 194C

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

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 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

KGL NETWORK (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

1) w.e.f. 01.04.1962 which is retrospective in nature. Assessee-Company filed revised audit report without any cause. The client raises invoice for the work assigned to the assessee-company and deducts tax under section 194C for these services and the assessee claims the entire TDS

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

194C on the payment made to Suzion Energy Ltd. The mischief of section 40(a)(i) is attracted where tax has not been deducted at source or after deduction the same has not been paid as per provisions of the subject section. It is not the case of the AO that TDS has not been made on the aforesaid payment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

194C on the payment made to Suzion Energy Ltd. The mischief of section 40(a)(i) is attracted where tax has not been deducted at source or after deduction the same has not been paid as per provisions of the subject section. It is not the case of the AO that TDS has not been made on the aforesaid payment