COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MAX INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.CHATURVEDI

TDS on the said perquisite value. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 201/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as Act) and computed the short deduction of tax under Section 201 of the Act at Rs.3,27,373/- and interest thereon under Section 201(1A) of the Act at Rs.2,47,860/- totaling

M/S OUTOTEC INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 4511/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Outotec India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income 507, 5Th Floor, Copia Corporate Tax, Circle-13(1), Suites, 9, Jasola Commercial New Delhi-110002 Complex, Jasola, New Delhi-110025, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco9433A Assessee By : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. & Sh. Suvinay Kumar Dash, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

section 195 and added back to the income of the assessee." 4. On appeal, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee submitted as under: "Ground No. 1 (a), (b), (c) These grounds are directed against disallowance of Service Fees paid amounting to Rs.95,95,363/- u/s 40(a)(i). 3.0 Our Submission 3.1 The allegations

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the above, the decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra) would support the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. In view of the totality of above facts, we are unable to uphold the view of the TPO that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 26: Risk prima facie passes with property:— ‘Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller’s risk until the property therein is transferred to the buyer, but when the property therein is transferred to the buyer, the goods are at the buyer’s risk whether delivery has been made or not……..” 7.5 We find that though

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

233,25,03,582/- under section 80IA of the Act in the original return of income filed on 30.11.2017 which claim was revised to Rs. 226,31,98,158/- in the revised return filed on 31.03.2018. There is no inkling in the order of the Ld. AO and / or of the Ld. DRP that the original or revised return

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

233,25,03,582/- under section 80IA of the Act in the original return of income filed on 30.11.2017 which claim was revised to Rs. 226,31,98,158/- in the revised return filed on 31.03.2018. There is no inkling in the order of the Ld. AO and / or of the Ld. DRP that the original or revised return

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

233/–. Ground No. 12 along with sub-grounds is allowed. 94. Ground No. 13 with sub grounds relates to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 95. The underlying facts in this issue are that the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings and on perusal of the financial statements of the assessee, found that

HARI MACHINES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Hari Machines Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4, Scindia House, Connaught Circle-11(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaach0868C (Appellant) (Respondent)

233/- on account of interest paid for late deposit of TDS. This issue clearly covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chennai Properties dated 20 April, 1998 1999 239 ITR 435 Mad where in it has been held that :- 2. The assessee

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

233 instead of Rs. 61,03,74,932. 3.3 That the Ld AO/DRP erred in computing capital gain by considering total sales consideration at JPY 1,01,34,40,086 instead of JPY 90,94,58,648 being the sale consideration already agreed vide the sale purchase agreement entered between the assessee and Isuzu Motors Ltd, Japan thus, enhancing

GE PRECISION HEALTHCARE LLC,USA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 9(1)(vi) cannot result in a change. It 18 imperative * that such amendment is brought about in the agreement as well. Any attempt short of this, even if it is evidence of the State's discomfort at letting data broadcast revenues slip by, will be insufficient to persuade this Court to hold that such amendments are applicable

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

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS under Section 194H of the Act.” 5. The learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue of disallowance of amount of Rs.6,35,40,939/- paid to the “Sales Promoters” toward ‘trade schemes’, under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for non-deduction of tax at source was raised

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS under Section 194H of the Act.” 5. The learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue of disallowance of amount of Rs.6,35,40,939/- paid to the “Sales Promoters” toward ‘trade schemes’, under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for non-deduction of tax at source was raised

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS under Section 194H of the Act.” 5. The learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue of disallowance of amount of Rs.6,35,40,939/- paid to the “Sales Promoters” toward ‘trade schemes’, under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for non-deduction of tax at source was raised

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 14A as per Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 66.35 lacs. During the relevant previous year, the assessee company earned dividend/interest income of Rs. 11.54 crores from investments in shares, bonds, and mutual funds, which was exempt under section 10(34)/10(35)/10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act. In view of the provisions of section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

233 ITR 468. vii. CIT vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. 296 ITR 702. viii. Amway India Enterprises v DCIT 111 ITD 112 (Del) (SB) 5. Regarding payment of sum of Rs. 45.5 crores to AAI in respect of capital work-in-progress (CWIP) under clause 5.4 of OMDA, the assessee submitted that under the terms of OMDA, assessee was liable