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 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

TDS returns. Further, reference was made to sub-clauses under section 200A(1) of the Act, wherein clause (a) refers to the sum deducted and clause (b) refers to the interest, if any; and w.e.f. 01.07.2012, new section was introduced i.e.234E of the Act, under which it was provided that person shall be liable to deposit the tax deducted

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

TDS returns. Further, reference was made to sub-clauses under section 200A(1) of the Act, wherein clause (a) refers to the sum deducted and clause (b) refers to the interest, if any; and w.e.f. 01.07.2012, new section was introduced i.e.234E of the Act, under which it was provided that person shall be liable to deposit the tax deducted

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

TDS returns. Further, reference was made to sub-clauses under section 200A(1) of the Act, wherein clause (a) refers to the sum deducted and clause (b) refers to the interest, if any; and w.e.f. 01.07.2012, new section was introduced i.e.234E of the Act, under which it was provided that person shall be liable to deposit the tax deducted

MADHYAM BUILDTECH P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

TDS & service tax was deducted from payment of commission made, there was no doubt on source of expenditure, hence section 69C is also not applicable. So far as contention of appellant that addition made by Assessing Officer is not sustainable as addition was made under section 69 instead of section 69C, it is a well settled principle of law that

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

TDS returns. Further, reference was made to sub-clauses under section 200A(1) of the Act, wherein clause (a) refers to the sum deducted and clause (b) refers to the interest, if any; and w.e.f. 01.07.2012, new section was introduced i.e. 234E of the Act, under which it was provided that person shall be liable to deposit the tax deducted

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

TDS returns. Further, reference was made to sub-clauses under section 200A(1) of the Act, wherein clause (a) refers to the sum deducted and clause (b) refers to the interest, if any; and w.e.f. 01.07.2012, new section was introduced i.e. 234E of the Act, under which it was provided that person shall be liable to deposit the tax deducted

ITO, FARIDABAD vs. M/S MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Tds Ward, Faridabad 12/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad (Pan: Aaacm1432F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Deepak Chopra & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dated 14.03.2011 Passed For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Facts & Law In Deleting The Penalty As Tax Deductor Continued Deducting The Tax, But Failed To Deposit The Same Into The Central Govt. Account Within The Stipulated Time. Ii. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Of Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty On The Ground That The Tax Deductor Was Ignorant Of Indian Tax Laws Is Not Correct As It Took The Tax Deductor More Than One Year To Understand & Comply With The Indian Tax Laws. Iii. That The Appellant Craves For The Permission To Add, Delete Or Amend The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows:

section 221 of the Act was passed by the Ld. AO raising a demand for penalty of Rs.25,00,000. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A), who vide order dated 14th March, 2011 deleted the penalty vide paras 6 & 6.1 of his order, which read as under: 4 “6. I have considered the submissions

JASJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

TDS amount with interest is recovered there shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the company. Penalty under Section 221

JASJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

TDS amount with interest is recovered there shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the company. Penalty under Section 221

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XIII vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

221/- thereon was deposited on 7th March, 2007. The balance amount of Rs.78,51,800/- was paid/released in the month of March, 2013:DHC:3039-DB ITA No. 65/2013 Page 3 of 20 2007 and TDS was deducted and was paid on the said amount before the due date in the month of April, 2007. Deduction, therefore

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARPOOL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, solitary ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H S Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS applies. The tax so collected and deducted is required to be paid to the credit of Central Government in terms of Section 200 of the Act read with rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under Section 201 read with Section

ROLLS ROYCE MILITARY AERO ENGINES LTD vs. DDIT INTL. TAXATION CIRCLE-2 (1),

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS applies. The tax so collected and deducted is required to be paid to the credit of Central Government in terms of Section 200 of the Act read with rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under Section 201 read with Section

ROLLS ROYCE MILITARY AERO ENGINES LTD vs. DDIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE 2 (1),

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS applies. The tax so collected and deducted is required to be paid to the credit of Central Government in terms of Section 200 of the Act read with rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under Section 201 read with Section

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

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

TDS applies. The tax so collected and deducted is required to be paid to the credit of Central Government in terms of Section 200 of the Act read with rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under Section 201 read with Section

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS applies. The tax so collected and deducted is required to be paid to the credit of Central Government in terms of Section 200 of the Act read with rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under Section 201 read with Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. GE PACKAGED POWER INC

TDS applies. The tax so collected and deducted is required to be paid to the credit of Central Government in terms of Section 200 of the Act read with rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under Section 201 read with Section

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

TDS or disallowance for cash payment exceeding the limit prescribed u/s 40A(3) would not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as the incurring of the said expenditure is not in dispute. (Principal CIT v Torque Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., 2016 SCC On Line P&H 7150; Solidity Developers Private