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 :

47,720/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under the head other sources" u/s 56 of the Income-tax Act on account of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 of Rs. 4,78,95,440/- received by the appellant during the year, which was part of enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land exempt

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

47 grossing up process under Section 195A or is it eligible for exemption under Section 10 (10CC) of the Act applicable to non-monetary perquisites. The tax authorities were of the opinion that tax borne by the employer is a monetary perquisite and therefore further tax thereon should be added to the salary by a multiple stage grossing up process

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

47 grossing up process under Section 195A or is it eligible for exemption under Section 10 (10CC) of the Act applicable to non-monetary perquisites. The tax authorities were of the opinion that tax borne by the employer is a monetary perquisite and therefore further tax thereon should be added to the salary by a multiple stage grossing up process

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

47 grossing up process under Section 195A or is it eligible for exemption under Section 10 (10CC) of the Act applicable to non-monetary perquisites. The tax authorities were of the opinion that tax borne by the employer is a monetary perquisite and therefore further tax thereon should be added to the salary by a multiple stage grossing up process

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)

47,406,341 made by customers from contractual receipts were not to be reduced from the gross revenue while computing the income chargeable to tax. Lew of interest 14. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act especially when there was no liability on the assessee

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

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)

TDS on legal and professional charges amounting to Rs.3.81 Lacs, it is seen that during the relevant year, the assessee incurred legal and professional expenses, amounting to Rs. 3,81,006/-. The details of said expenses were submitted before the authorities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid expenses, invoking section 40(a)(ia), for the failure of the assessee

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

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

TDS have been deducted and income have been offered for tax by the Director. Therefore, considering the nature of business of assessee and contribution of Director and following order for A.Y. 2010-2011 in which we have dismissed the departmental appeal, we do not find any justification to interfere with the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

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

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

TDS have been deducted and income have been offered for tax by the Director. Therefore, considering the nature of business of assessee and contribution of Director and following order for A.Y. 2010-2011 in which we have dismissed the departmental appeal, we do not find any justification to interfere with the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

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

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

TDS have been deducted and income have been offered for tax by the Director. Therefore, considering the nature of business of assessee and contribution of Director and following order for A.Y. 2010-2011 in which we have dismissed the departmental appeal, we do not find any justification to interfere with the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

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

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

TDS have been deducted and income have been offered for tax by the Director. Therefore, considering the nature of business of assessee and contribution of Director and following order for A.Y. 2010-2011 in which we have dismissed the departmental appeal, we do not find any justification to interfere with the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

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

2. Assessee's Claim on Surcharge Rates—Conflation of Rates: The assessee argued that surcharge was also deductible (at 0.04 on section 194C and 0.244 if exceeding Rs. 10 lacs, etc.) and that when the assessee's deposits are viewed inclusively of surcharge, the amount is adequate. However, surcharge is not part of "TDS" under section 194; surcharge

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

2. Assessee's Claim on Surcharge Rates—Conflation of Rates: The assessee argued that surcharge was also deductible (at 0.04 on section 194C and 0.244 if exceeding Rs. 10 lacs, etc.) and that when the assessee's deposits are viewed inclusively of surcharge, the amount is adequate. However, surcharge is not part of "TDS" under section 194; surcharge

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

2. Assessee's Claim on Surcharge Rates—Conflation of Rates: The assessee argued that surcharge was also deductible (at 0.04 on section 194C and 0.244 if exceeding Rs. 10 lacs, etc.) and that when the assessee's deposits are viewed inclusively of surcharge, the amount is adequate. However, surcharge is not part of "TDS" under section 194; surcharge

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

47) of the Act and therefore conditions for claiming deduction u/s 54 got satisfied. Further, the Assessee also subsequently obtained possession of the constructed flat from the developer on 08/12/2021, which too is within the prescribed timelines of section 54. In view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted such disallowance made

M/S. BAIN & COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on payments amounting to Rs. 82,34,240 made by it to its parent company, Bain & Company Inc. (Bain US) on account of payments made to third parties. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that there is no evidence that such expenses were reimbursement of expenses

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid any future hassles for both resident as well as non-resident. In our view, Sections 195(2) and 195(3) are safeguards. The said provisions are of practical importance. This reasoning of ours is based on the decision

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

TDS under section 194H of the Act. 9.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid discounts were offered under contracts entered into with the dealers on principal to principal to basis, and did not constitute „commission‟ as referred to section 194H of the Act. 9.3 Without prejudice, that the assessing officer