HEBE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

24)(x), Section 36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of Finance Act 2021, Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 and the specific amendments which will take effect from 01.04.2021, we hereby hold that no disallowance is called for belated payment of the employee’s contribution to the respective

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

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

INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

TDS statement and consequently 26AS. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for conducting a proper enquiry by calling upon the necessary information from TCE and then decide the issue. Needless to say, the assessee be given a proper opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

x". 16. Distinction between tax-free income and the "xx" income on which tax should be paid by the employer is well brought out in Simon's Income Tax, second edition, vol. 11, at page 710. This is what is stated therein: "Where remuneration is paid to an employee free of income tax or the employer pays his employee

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

x". 16. Distinction between tax-free income and the "xx" income on which tax should be paid by the employer is well brought out in Simon's Income Tax, second edition, vol. 11, at page 710. This is what is stated therein: "Where remuneration is paid to an employee free of income tax or the employer pays his employee

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

x". 16. Distinction between tax-free income and the "xx" income on which tax should be paid by the employer is well brought out in Simon's Income Tax, second edition, vol. 11, at page 710. This is what is stated therein: "Where remuneration is paid to an employee free of income tax or the employer pays his employee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OXIGEN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the Explanation given to Section 36(1 )(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of due date. 10. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS. Income tax preparation assistant had mistakenly disallowed amount in Part A Ol-Other Information, clause no 8 A(a) of Rs.25,08,005/-. But, LD. AO had disallowed it again in his order. It resulted in double addition to the Income. It is wholly unsustainable both on facts and in law. 9. That the Authorities below erred in both

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS. Income tax preparation assistant had mistakenly disallowed amount in Part A Ol-Other Information, clause no 8 A(a) of Rs.25,08,005/-. But, LD. AO had disallowed it again in his order. It resulted in double addition to the Income. It is wholly unsustainable both on facts and in law. 9. That the Authorities below erred in both

KOTA TRUCKS P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Kota Trucks P. Ltd. Vs. Acit Bg-223, Sanjay Gandhi Circle -14(2) Transport Nagar, Gt New Delhi Karnal Road, New Delhi- 110042 Pan No.Aadck3550H Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Pratap Gupta, Ca (Virtual) Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the ITAT are also set-aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent/Revenue to proceed in accordance with law. 19. The substantial question of law is answered

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective Act. 4.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective Act. 4.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective Act. 4.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective Act. 4.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

TDS. The case of the assessee was referred by the ld AO to ld TPO for benchmarking the international transaction of the assessee. The ld TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 30.07.2021 proposing an arm‟s length price (ALP) of Rs. 5,25,89,297/- in respect of provision of marketing support services by the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VRV FOODS LTD., NOIDA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) after due date which is evident from table extracted in preceding para no.5. So, the case laws relied upon by the ld. AR for the assessee is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed