HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act were, both on facts and in law, not\n3\nITA No. 2542/Del/2024\napplicable and hence, there was no warrant to make addition of\nRs.418,66,34,625.”\n3.\nGround nos. 1 to 7 of the appeal are against the disallowance of provisions for collection\ncharges amounting to Rs.9

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. During assessment proceedings ld. AO enquired about the object, activity, receipt of fees, TDS

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

section share) 56(2))(viib) read with 302,94,20,917/- 272,03,82,220 286,85,63,149 Explanation a(ii) and applied valuation as Total Assets per Rule 11UA. (A) However , while applying Rule 11UA the learned AO failed to apply the complete TDS

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

section share) 56(2))(viib) read with 302,94,20,917/- 272,03,82,220 286,85,63,149 Explanation a(ii) and applied valuation as Total Assets per Rule 11UA. (A) However , while applying Rule 11UA the learned AO failed to apply the complete TDS

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

section 194A of the I.T. Act. 11. Reliance has also placed on the following judgments :- 1. CIT, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [29] 182 Taxman 368 (SC) 2. CIT, Rajkot Vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya [2014] 52 taxman.com 27 (SC) 3. Surjit Kumar Chetal Vs. CIT-XV [2017] 86 taxmann.com 121 (Delhi) 4. Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

2) is wide. If any perquisite other than a monetary benefit is granted, that provision (Section 10 (10CC) operates. If this scheme is understood in its proper perspective, it is evident, from Section 192 (1A) that a person (employer) responsible for making payment of a non-monetary perquisite, “may pay, at his option, tax on the whole or part

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

2) is wide. If any perquisite other than a monetary benefit is granted, that provision (Section 10 (10CC) operates. If this scheme is understood in its proper perspective, it is evident, from Section 192 (1A) that a person (employer) responsible for making payment of a non-monetary perquisite, “may pay, at his option, tax on the whole or part

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

2) is wide. If any perquisite other than a monetary benefit is granted, that provision (Section 10 (10CC) operates. If this scheme is understood in its proper perspective, it is evident, from Section 192 (1A) that a person (employer) responsible for making payment of a non-monetary perquisite, “may pay, at his option, tax on the whole or part

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

TDS-1, Surat [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Gujrat). 8. Per Contra, the Learned DR relying upon the orders passed by the both authorities below, submitted that the Legislature introduced the provisions of section 56(2

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)

TDS) that the question of making an order under Section 195(2) will arise. In fact, at one point of time

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAMESH KUMAR PABBI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit Vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Circle – 62(1), A-41, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aanpp 5995 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr.D.R. Revenue By Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

TDS on the interest paid (PB-95), therefore, it was a commercial transaction entered into between into between assessee and M/s. Ramsan Communication Limited. Section 2

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner.” 25. The order passed under Section 201 (1) is not an assessment order. The order is directed against a person who fails to deduct TDS

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

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

TDS under section 194C and in view of assessee’s failure to deduct tax at source under the aforesaid section, the entire purchases aggregating to Rs. 5.063.OK crores made from the aforesaid vendors was disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 43. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of Delhi

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

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

TDS) that the question of making an order under Section 195(2) will arise. In fact, at one point of time

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 2(22)(e) will not be applicable in the present case. The issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, Ground Nos. 10 to 10.3 are allowed in favour of the assessee. 34. As regards to Ground No. 11 to11.1 relating to disallowance of payments made for advisory services

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

TDS) that the question of making an order under Section 195(2) will arise. In fact, at one point of time

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The salary paid to these employees is reflected by them in their income tax returns which have been accepted by the Department. The salary paid to the employees in a sum of Rs.18,18,465/- in preceding A.Y. 2009-2010 have been accepted by the Department including Rs.8 lakhs paid to these

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The salary paid to these employees is reflected by them in their income tax returns which have been accepted by the Department. The salary paid to the employees in a sum of Rs.18,18,465/- in preceding A.Y. 2009-2010 have been accepted by the Department including Rs.8 lakhs paid to these