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

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.9,75,00,000/-. The AO noted that

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

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 payable 43,63,060 - 43,63,060 formula and failed to took factor

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 payable 43,63,060 - 43,63,060 formula and failed to took factor

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.

37). It is also submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi, consistently held that interest under Section 28 is part of the enhanced compensation and, therefore, not taxable under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. CIT(A), however, in para 5.7 of the impugned order, erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

37. In CIT v. Lala Shri Dhar (1972) 84 NR 192 (Del))this Court was concerned with contributions made by the employers under policies of personal accident taken out by them for protecting themselves against the liability for payment of compensation to their employees. It was held by the Court that the decision to take the policy

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

37. In CIT v. Lala Shri Dhar (1972) 84 NR 192 (Del))this Court was concerned with contributions made by the employers under policies of personal accident taken out by them for protecting themselves against the liability for payment of compensation to their employees. It was held by the Court that the decision to take the policy

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

37. In CIT v. Lala Shri Dhar (1972) 84 NR 192 (Del))this Court was concerned with contributions made by the employers under policies of personal accident taken out by them for protecting themselves against the liability for payment of compensation to their employees. It was held by the Court that the decision to take the policy

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal to operating costs, but no clear methodology for apportioning costs between Sahara and Percept (the JVC partners) is documented. 3. TDS

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal to operating costs, but no clear methodology for apportioning costs between Sahara and Percept (the JVC partners) is documented. 3. TDS

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37 (business expenses) or another statutory head. 2. Vague apportionment: The MOU states JVC shall receive "mutually agreed fees" equal to operating costs, but no clear methodology for apportioning costs between Sahara and Percept (the JVC partners) is documented. 3. TDS

NALWA STEEL POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS provisions, but finally the Assessing Officer made the additions in violation of the DRP’s directions even without challenging the finding by the 23 department. 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO, directions of the DRP and Assessment Order. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record

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) of payments made to non-residents. In other words, according to the Department Section 195(2) is a provision Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. VS DDIT (International taxation) ITA No.1332/DEL/2012 A.Y.: 2005-06 ITA No 5284/Del/2010 A Y 2007-08 IAT no 242/Del/2010 A Y 2008-09 ITA No 6161/Del/2012, 6003/DEL/2012 CO 21/Del/2013 A Y 2009-10 ITA No 5936/DEL/2013

INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

2 to section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, there is no correlation between suo-moto disallowance in section 37(1) and claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act. 7.5 As with regard to the reasoning that CSR expenditure are not voluntary but mandatory in nature due to penal consequences, we are of considered view that voluntary nature

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 payment of Rs.3,93,035/- towards testing charges payable to RITES Ltd as mandated u/s 194J of the I.T. Act, 1961. (III) The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 4. First ground is with respect to the deleting of addition of deemed dividend made

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 taxmann.com 32 (Del) and CIT v. Cadbury India Ltd (2011) 11 taxmann.com 66(Del) and submitted that there was reasonable cause for the Appellant‟s failure to deduct TDS under Section 194-I of the Act. 32. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the Revenue, first submitted that the conduct of the Assessee did not entitle

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 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

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