YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

TDS amounts deposited with the income tax authorities, by the assessee‘s employers. These excess amount, according to the Assessing Officer, were not exempt under Section 10(5B) but were taxable income of the assessee, as ―disguised perquisites‖. The assessees contended that refund issued in their name could not be treated as a perquisite, as neither any benefit accrued

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

TDS amounts deposited with the income tax authorities, by the assessee‘s employers. These excess amount, according to the Assessing Officer, were not exempt under Section 10(5B) but were taxable income of the assessee, as ―disguised perquisites‖. The assessees contended that refund issued in their name could not be treated as a perquisite, as neither any benefit accrued

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

TDS amounts deposited with the income tax authorities, by the assessee‘s employers. These excess amount, according to the Assessing Officer, were not exempt under Section 10(5B) but were taxable income of the assessee, as ―disguised perquisites‖. The assessees contended that refund issued in their name could not be treated as a perquisite, as neither any benefit accrued

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

section 56(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

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

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 263 of IX Act, 1961. 4. Date of hearing in your case has been fixed for 03.12.2018 at 11:45AM at my office. You may produce all necessary evidence in support of your explanation.," 7. Assessee responded to that by filing detailed representation explaining the reason for show cause stating that order is neither erroneous and nor prejudicial

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 :

7. ITO-TDS 2, Rajkot V. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No.18475 of 2017 dated 10.11.2017 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.A. No.1236 of 2019 arising in WPC No. 59/2016 in the case of Shri Brahamparkash & Ors. vs. HSIIDCL & Ors. order dated 19.07.2019. 9. Jai Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. HSIIDCL & Ors. 10. Writ Petition (Civil

M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above

M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above

M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above

M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above

M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above

M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above

M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

7 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 NOTE: SEH -SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ADVANTAGE - Advantage Fashions Pvt. Ltd. UKPI- U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. UTTAM-Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ESPO- ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. VINCENT-Vincent Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. FAMOUS-Famous Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. ASPIRE-Aspire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. VATIKA- Vatika Ltd. It is abundantly clear from the above