YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

5: Grossing up under Section 195-A 47. The Finance Act 2002 sought to simplify the scheme for taxation of perquisites and gave the employer the option to pay taxes on the whole or part value of perquisites (excluding those provided for by way of monetary payment) without any deduction from the income of the employee. Simultaneously, the tax paid

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

5: Grossing up under Section 195-A 47. The Finance Act 2002 sought to simplify the scheme for taxation of perquisites and gave the employer the option to pay taxes on the whole or part value of perquisites (excluding those provided for by way of monetary payment) without any deduction from the income of the employee. Simultaneously, the tax paid

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

2) of the Act. It appears that 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 3 of 61 proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85 under Section 148 of the Act were dropped. We are not concerned with the said proceedings in the present appeals. We are also not concerned with the proceedings in respect

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

2) of the Act. It appears that 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 3 of 61 proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85 under Section 148 of the Act were dropped. We are not concerned with the said proceedings in the present appeals. We are also not concerned with the proceedings in respect

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

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 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. During assessment proceedings ld. AO enquired about the object, activity, receipt of fees, TDS

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

ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI vs. J. KISHORE EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

2) by making an application to the AO and obtain an order from him about the deductibility of TDS. Alternatively, the payee can also resort to section 195(3) of the Income Tax Act read with rules 37BB and submit necessary report to the [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Income Tax Department, based on which TDS would not be deductible. However

ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(2), NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN EPC COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

5(2) read with section 9 of the Act, we have held above that the foreign commission is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident. Be that as it may, it is important to note that it is not a solitary precedent available on the subject. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in DIT v. Panalfa

HINDUSTAN EPC COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

5(2) read with section 9 of the Act, we have held above that the foreign commission is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident. Be that as it may, it is important to note that it is not a solitary precedent available on the subject. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in DIT v. Panalfa

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

5, 9, 90, 91 as well as the provisions of DTAA are also relevant, while applying tax deduction at source provisions. Reference to ITO (TDS) under Section 195(2

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)

2) is not merely a provision to provide information to the ITO(TDS). It is a provision requiring tax to be deducted as source to be paid to the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non-resident. Therefore, Section 195 has to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, ie., Sections 4, 5

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD.,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 579/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-1, International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 779/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Assistant Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Circle-1(2), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 1762/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-2(1), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 957/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Precinct 3, Dubai International International Taxation, New Financial Centre (Difc), Delhi Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H

5(2)(i) of the Tax Treaty and even otherwise all the above factual conclusion are baseless and therefore, the decision of the AO / DRP in this matter be reversed and the no PE position as declared by the Appellant in the Return of Income be accepted. Ground No. 2 - Erroneously profits attributed to alleged PE of the Appellant

M/S. HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 579/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-1, International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 779/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Assistant Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Circle-1(2), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 1762/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-2(1), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 957/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Precinct 3, Dubai International International Taxation, New Financial Centre (Difc), Delhi Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H

5(2)(i) of the Tax Treaty and even otherwise all the above factual conclusion are baseless and therefore, the decision of the AO / DRP in this matter be reversed and the no PE position as declared by the Appellant in the Return of Income be accepted. Ground No. 2 - Erroneously profits attributed to alleged PE of the Appellant

M/S. HYATT INTERNATIONAL-SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 579/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-1, International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 779/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Assistant Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Circle-1(2), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 1762/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-2(1), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 957/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Precinct 3, Dubai International International Taxation, New Financial Centre (Difc), Delhi Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H

5(2)(i) of the Tax Treaty and even otherwise all the above factual conclusion are baseless and therefore, the decision of the AO / DRP in this matter be reversed and the no PE position as declared by the Appellant in the Return of Income be accepted. Ground No. 2 - Erroneously profits attributed to alleged PE of the Appellant

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 579/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-1, International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 779/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Assistant Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Circle-1(2), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 1762/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-2(1), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 957/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Precinct 3, Dubai International International Taxation, New Financial Centre (Difc), Delhi Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H

5(2)(i) of the Tax Treaty and even otherwise all the above factual conclusion are baseless and therefore, the decision of the AO / DRP in this matter be reversed and the no PE position as declared by the Appellant in the Return of Income be accepted. Ground No. 2 - Erroneously profits attributed to alleged PE of the Appellant