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.

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 of tax on behalf of the person on whose behalf the deduction

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in not granting credit of tax of INR 1,92,29,851 withheld by income-tax department on interest on income tax refund. 8. Erroneous computation of tax liability That on the facts and circumstances of the case

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPL. RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

Section 115-O introduced by the Finance Bill 1997. In terms of Rule 8(1) of the Rules income derived from the sale of tea grown by the assessee and 53 Special Bench - Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. manufactured by the seller in India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business, and forty per cent

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

Section 115-O introduced by the Finance Bill 1997. In terms of Rule 8(1) of the Rules income derived from the sale of tea grown by the assessee and 53 Special Bench - Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. manufactured by the seller in India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business, and forty per cent

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

Section 115-O introduced by the Finance Bill 1997. In terms of Rule 8(1) of the Rules income derived from the sale of tea grown by the assessee and 53 Special Bench - Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. manufactured by the seller in India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business, and forty per cent

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

Section 115-O introduced by the Finance Bill 1997. In terms of Rule 8(1) of the Rules income derived from the sale of tea grown by the assessee and 53 Special Bench - Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. manufactured by the seller in India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business, and forty per cent

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

Section 115-O introduced by the Finance Bill 1997. In terms of Rule 8(1) of the Rules income derived from the sale of tea grown by the assessee and 53 Special Bench - Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. manufactured by the seller in India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business, and forty per cent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TEJ QUEBECOR PRINTING LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANJU GOEL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SARIN

TDS return filed by the assessee that no ITA Nos.726, 715, 724, 725/2005 page 2 of 11 e, ' salary had been paid to the employee nor any deduction under Section 192 made by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly held the assessee company to be in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Liability arising

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TEJ QUEBECOR PRINTING LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANJU GOEL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SARIN

TDS return filed by the assessee that no ITA Nos.726, 715, 724, 725/2005 page 2 of 11 e, ' salary had been paid to the employee nor any deduction under Section 192 made by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly held the assessee company to be in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Liability arising