USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal and stay application of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS could be deducted, they are required by the provisions of Section 115G to file their returns. Any tax, payable by them is taxable at this stage. Section 198 further clarifies that tax deducted is income, received in the hands of the assessee. In this case the tax amount is already with the NRI vendors and the incidence, of taxability

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S APEX RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

TDS or tax paid has been made. While deciding applications under Section 154, or passing an order under Section 245

M/S. P.K. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD.,,MEERUT vs. ACIT, MEERUT

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

245 ITR 527 (Raj.) in Para 8. Appellant’s detailed reply with respect to interest paid is reproduced at page 3 of the assessment order. PB 64 is evidence to show that books were produced in original assessment proceeding. GROUND NO. 4 is not pressed in view of the direction already given by Ld. CIT(A) at page

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS under section 194C of the Act. 39.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing officer failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 194C of the Act were not applicable in relation to the aforesaid transactions, as the same were in the nature of contract of sale. 39.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NUWAVE E SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

TDS rate on long-term capital gain @20% under Section 40(a) (i) read with Section 195 of the Act and not appreciating that the nature of income in the hands of Dr. Anil Gupta, NRI. 7. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal

NIHO CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

TDS rate on long-term capital gain @20% under Section 40(a) (i) read with Section 195 of the Act and not appreciating that the nature of income in the hands of Dr. Anil Gupta, NRI. 7. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal

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

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

section 194H was liable to be deducted. 33. The learned authorised representative submitted that The Tribunal in assessment year 2007-08 decided the issue in favour of the appellant relying on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mother Dairy Ltd. (ITA No. 1925/2010) and Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (336 ITR 383), holding that

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS at concessional rates under Section 194LD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (5.253% and 5.4075% respectively), fully deposited by the issuer, Sugam Vanijya Holdings Pvt Ltd. Exposure to ICC Realty (India) In addition to its debenture investments in VR Dakshin Private Limited, Argos had Pvt. Ltd. also subscribed to rated, redeemable NCDs issued by ICC Realty Private Limited, another

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS at concessional rates under Section 194LD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (5.253% and 5.4075% respectively), fully deposited by the issuer, Sugam Vanijya Holdings Pvt Ltd. Exposure to ICC Realty (India) In addition to its debenture investments in VR Dakshin Private Limited, Argos had Pvt. Ltd. also subscribed to rated, redeemable NCDs issued by ICC Realty Private Limited, another

M/S R.K. JAIN INFRA PROJECTS P LTD,DELHI vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

245/- as payment to contractors (as job work) and deducted TDS on it u/s 194C @1% for Rs 11,26,586/-. But on perusal of the confirmations submitted by the assessee for the payment, it was found that the payment of these job works has either been paid to a firm or to a company but not to any individual

M/S. HONDA CARS INDIA LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year : 2009-10

TDS to be deducted while making payment of FTS in terms of Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act. 57. A plain reading of Section 90 (2) of the Act, makes it clear that the provisions of the DTAA would prevail over the Act unless the Act is more beneficial to the Assessee. Therefore, except to the extent a provision

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

TDS of Rs. 7,22,03,977. Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 32 of 484 44. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in charging interest under section 234D of the Act. 5) The revenue

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

section\n37(1) of the Act.\nC) Holding that the Appellant failed to justify its claim to prove that\nthe Appellant has incurred the expenditure.\nAll the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary, omit or\nsubstitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS Rs.712257/-; 18. Deletion of addition on account of reclassification of income from income from house property to income from business and profession.- Rs.9,40,52,455/-; 19. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of notional rent/additional annual letting value in respect of the vacant property. - Rs. 12,28,340/-; 20. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS Rs.712257/-; 18. Deletion of addition on account of reclassification of income from income from house property to income from business and profession.- Rs.9,40,52,455/-; 19. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of notional rent/additional annual letting value in respect of the vacant property. - Rs. 12,28,340/-; 20. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance

DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

section 37(1) of the Act. C) Holding that the Appellant failed to justify its claim to prove that the Appellant has incurred the expenditure. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

section 37(1) of the Act. C) Holding that the Appellant failed to justify its claim to prove that the Appellant has incurred the expenditure. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

section 37(1) of the Act. C) Holding that the Appellant failed to justify its claim to prove that the Appellant has incurred the expenditure. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before