AXA FRANCE VIE,SAKET, NEW DELHI, INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 194D provides that TDS has to be deducted where any sum is paid for soliciting or procuring insurance business

SHRI RAJIV JAIN,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 194D for which assessee was liable to make TDS. After reproducing the provisions of section 194D and 40(a)(ia) of the Act, AO concluded

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARAGON XT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2010-11

194D, section 194E, section 194EE, section 194F, section 194G,section 194H, section 1941, 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

CONCRETE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 6(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N.Chary, Judcial Member [Through Video Conferencing]

194D, section 194E, section 194EE, section 194F, section 194G, section 194H, section 194I, 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

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.

194D, section 194E, section 194EE, section 194F, section 194G, section 194H, section 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

HANSRAJ ,REWARI vs. ITO WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Ita No:- 4978/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Hansraj, Income Tax Officer, C-75, Ground Floor, Ward-1(4), M2K County, Dharuhera Vs Gurugram, Rewari, Haryana-123106. Haryana-122001. Pan- Aazph7436E Assessee Revenue

194D TDS-return-Insurance Commission (Section Rs. 41,234/-194D) TDS- 1941(b) Rent Received (TDS Form 26Q, Section

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

TDS Ward-2, Lucknow is reproduced as below:- “All the functions of Assessing Officer under Chapter XVIIB, BB & D, Chapter XXI and Chapter XXII of the Act in respect of such areas, or such persons or classes of persons mentioned below:- All persons responsible for paying any income or sum of the nature mentioned in section 192 to 194, 194A

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

TDS Ward-2, Lucknow is reproduced as below:- “All the functions of Assessing Officer under Chapter XVIIB, BB & D, Chapter XXI and Chapter XXII of the Act in respect of such areas, or such persons or classes of persons mentioned below:- All persons responsible for paying any income or sum of the nature mentioned in section 192 to 194, 194A

M/S. SPFL SECURITIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

TDS.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the addition of Rs. 81,51,443/- and Rs. 59,27,785/- under section 40(ia) of the Income Tax Act. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee vehemently challenged the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the addition made

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SPEL SECURITIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

TDS.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the addition of Rs. 81,51,443/- and Rs. 59,27,785/- under section 40(ia) of the Income Tax Act. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee vehemently challenged the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the addition made

M/S. NIIT GIS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

194D) or brokerage, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment of such income in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income- tax thereon at the rate of ten per cent : Page

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 u/s 194LD of the Act. This submission was rejected by the Assessing Officer and proceeded to make the aforesaid addition. 12. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee filed objections and detailed submissions before the ld. DRP, after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. DRP rejected the objections raised by the assessee and sustained the addition made

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 u/s 194LD of the Act. This submission was rejected by the Assessing Officer and proceeded to make the aforesaid addition. 12. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee filed objections and detailed submissions before the ld. DRP, after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. DRP rejected the objections raised by the assessee and sustained the addition made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMNI MEDIA COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

TDS on commission/brokerage says:- Commission or brokerage. 194H. Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying, on or after the 1st day of June, 2001, to a resident, any income by way of commission (not being insurance commission referred to in section 194D

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JDS APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED

TDS Circle Mumbai that the respondent-assessee had paid “commission” to HDFC on payments received from customers who had made purchases through credit cards. Survey under Section 133A of the Act had been conducted on HDFC, who had provided card swiping machines to retail merchants, including the respondent-assessee. A credit card holder could make payment by swiping the credit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal on this aspect is set aside

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charydcit, Vs. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Circle-5(1), Ltd, New Delhi A-60, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs1709H (Appellant) (Respondent)

194D) or brokerage, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment of such income in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct Income-tax thereon at the rate of ten per cent. (2) The provisions

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS on commissions / brokerages payable to the franchisees. In support of this proposition Ld. AR relied upon the judgment in case of appellant itself for the year under consideration by Hyderabad Bench of ITAT vide order dated 5th June, 2015 reported in 42 ITR (Trib.) 669 (Hyd). Ld AR also submitted that the presumption drawn

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmabharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Vs. Acit, Taxation Section, First Floor, Circle-6(2), Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi Janpath, New Delhi-11001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcb5576G

TDS u/s. 194H of the Act. 8.5 In view of the above, it is held that as the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source, in terms of provisions of section 194H of the I.T. Act, 1961 from the discount given to the distributors / franchisees, the-same is disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia). During the course of assessment proceedings