DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the AO made addition of Rs.19,34,21,760/- to the total income of the assessee. The AO further noted from the financial statements of the assessee that interest expenses amounting to Rs.1,90,91,632/- was paid on borrowed funds. The special auditors had observed that the company has granted interest-free

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SANDEEP SABHARWAL, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. C. Gupta, Hon’Ble & Sh. O.P.Kant

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is also evident from the computation of income of the assessee (enclosed at PB 1), that the assessee has given the said premises on rent to M/s Overseas Connextion Ltd. and has received rent thereon, which has been duly disclosed in the computation. The said company has also deducted TDS

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)

22. TATA COSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED 719202 31000 5. A perusal of the records of the case it is seen that the exact nature of these payments vis a vis services rendered by the assessee has not been examined in the assessment proceedings for A.Y.2014-15. Why commercial establishments are making such payments and deducting TDS on such payment, impliedly claiming

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

22 of 61 Officer in respect of any income accruing or arising or received within the area for which he is appointed." Post-Amendment Section 124 reads: 124. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers.- (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has been vested with

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

22 of 61 Officer in respect of any income accruing or arising or received within the area for which he is appointed." Post-Amendment Section 124 reads: 124. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers.- (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has been vested with

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. NEENA KANDHARI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 2(22)(e) is not applicable to running/current account. • Shri Satish Kumar Gupta vs. ACIT, TS-631-ITAT-2016 (Del) • CIT (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

TDS Payable 4.363.060 4.363.060 Other Current Liabilities 583.059 583.059 Provision for Interest on Loan 39.267.539 39.267.539 Liabilities (B) 44,483,658 44,483,658 C=(A+B) 1,243,424,451 2,984,397,259 Unsecured Loan (Thomson Press India Limited) 819.187,525 819,187,525 Total Firm Value 4.24.236.926 2.165.749.734 Net Finn Value 424,236,926 2

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 4.363.060 4.363.060 Other Current Liabilities 583.059 583.059 Provision for Interest on Loan 39.267.539 39.267.539 Liabilities (B) 44,483,658 44,483,658 C=(A+B) 1,243,424,451 2,984,397,259 Unsecured Loan (Thomson Press India Limited) 819.187,525 819,187,525 Total Firm Value 4.24.236.926 2.165.749.734 Net Finn Value 424,236,926 2

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

TDS certificates\nissued for FY 16-17 on sample basis, are enclosed as Enclosure-IV.\nThus, our submission is that, the entire collection expenditure, including provision\nmade for the purpose of business and services rendered by collection vendors\nduring the year 2016-17. is allowable as business expenditure to the assessee.\nTherefore, the question disallowance or making any addition

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

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. 23 to 23.3 are allowed in favour of the assessee. 38. As relates to Ground No. 24- 24.1 regarding disallowance of payments made for advisory services availed

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

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 :

22. Decision in the case of Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO-TDS 2, Rajkot Vs. Muktanadgiri Maheshgiri vs. District Development 23. Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Hisar Vs. Hari Singh Saini in ITA No.1539/Del/2020 24. In the case of Mahender pal Narang Vs. CBDT New Delhi [ 2020] 120 taxmann.com

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

22. Section 17 (2) outlines various perquisites, such as: 1) Value of rent-free or concessional rent accommodation provided by the employer. 2) Value of any benefit/amenity granted free or at concessional rate to specified employees, etc. Specified employees are company directors, employees with substantial interest in the company and any other employee whose salary income exclusive of non-monetary

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

22. Section 17 (2) outlines various perquisites, such as: 1) Value of rent-free or concessional rent accommodation provided by the employer. 2) Value of any benefit/amenity granted free or at concessional rate to specified employees, etc. Specified employees are company directors, employees with substantial interest in the company and any other employee whose salary income exclusive of non-monetary

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

22. Section 17 (2) outlines various perquisites, such as: 1) Value of rent-free or concessional rent accommodation provided by the employer. 2) Value of any benefit/amenity granted free or at concessional rate to specified employees, etc. Specified employees are company directors, employees with substantial interest in the company and any other employee whose salary income exclusive of non-monetary

M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

TDS at source shall be issued where buyback of shares has taken place prior to 1.6.2013 and the case is covered under Section 46A read with section 2(22

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

TDS at source shall be issued where buyback of shares has taken place prior to 1.6.2013 and the case is covered under Section 46A read with section 2(22

INVOLUTE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 12(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-30, Anand Niketan, Circle-12(2), Basement, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacs2041N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca; Ms Pallavi Sharma, Ca & Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.208/18-19/Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 18.03.2016, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

section 2(22)(e) were not violated at any stage and explanations and facts were duly furnished before him which have been either been ignored or not appreciated in correct perspective. 6.2 Thus where Appellant advances money to SIEL and amount received from SIEL is only the repayment of such money advanced. Ld. Tax authorities have not at all examined