YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

17 (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

CIT vs. YOSHIMI KAMANO

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

CIT vs. ISAO SAKAI

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

CIT vs. YUJI HORIKAWA

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

CIT vs. YOSHIMI KAMANO

The appeals stand dismissed

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

CIT vs. ISAO SAKAI

The appeals stand dismissed

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

TDS and self assessment advance tax challans had not been attached etc. The respondent has not stated or averred that he had filed the requisite papers as mentioned in the said notice dated 6th July, 1988. However, there is no order of the income tax authority at Dimapur declaring the return to be void or invalid. 14. The assessment orders

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

TDS and self assessment advance tax challans had not been attached etc. The respondent has not stated or averred that he had filed the requisite papers as mentioned in the said notice dated 6th July, 1988. However, there is no order of the income tax authority at Dimapur declaring the return to be void or invalid. 14. The assessment orders

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 263 of IX Act, 1961. 4. Date of hearing in your case has been fixed for 03.12.2018 at 11:45AM at my office. You may produce all necessary evidence in support of your explanation.," 7. Assessee responded to that by filing detailed representation explaining the reason for show cause stating that order is neither erroneous and nor prejudicial

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

TDS payable 43,63,060 - 43,63,060 formula and failed to took factor of Rs. 10, and if said factor would have been taken, 8,53,059 8,75,737 8,53,059 the value of assessee’s share would have Other been Rs. 70 (even going by the method so Current applied by learned AO) Liabilities

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

TDS payable 43,63,060 - 43,63,060 formula and failed to took factor of Rs. 10, and if said factor would have been taken, 8,53,059 8,75,737 8,53,059 the value of assessee’s share would have Other been Rs. 70 (even going by the method so Current applied by learned AO) Liabilities

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

CIT vs. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

2. The assessees are engaged in the business of owning, operating and managing hotels. Surveys were conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) at the business premises of the assessees during which it was found that the assessees had been paying tips to its employees but not deducting taxes thereon

CIT vs. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD

The appeals are allowed

2. The assessees are engaged in the business of owning, operating and managing hotels. Surveys were conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) at the business premises of the assessees during which it was found that the assessees had been paying tips to its employees but not deducting taxes thereon

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) @ 10 per cent only on amount of Rs.13,43,02,195/- which is the interest portion and the remaining amount of Rs.3,85,10,725 being enhanced value and solatium not been considered for deduction of tax at source. Hence it is clear that the authority has not considered the entire amount as enhanced value of compensation attributable

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

17 to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid. (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

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)

17. The Court accordingly holds that for the purposes of computing the 'presumptive income' of the assessee for the purposes of Section 44BB of the Act, the service tax collected by the Assessee on the amount paid to it for rendering services is not to be included in the gross receipts in terms of Section 44BB(2) read with Section

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:

17,93,339 (179) (175) (175) iv) 2013-14 18,20,197 Nil 18,20,197 (12) (10) (10) 21.3 Therefore it is held that transaction between sister concerns in normal course of business are commercial transactions and thus otherwise too do not constitute deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 21.4 It is also noted that