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. He further stated that earlier to that, there was no provision of levy of fees. Similarly, amendments were made in section 246A of the Act. The first issue raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that where the Assessing Officer had issued the intimation under section 200A of the Act, then the same is appealable under

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. He further stated that earlier to that, there was no provision of levy of fees. Similarly, amendments were made in section 246A of the Act. The first issue raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that where the Assessing Officer had issued the intimation under section 200A of the Act, then the same is appealable under

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. He further stated that earlier to that, there was no provision of levy of fees. Similarly, amendments were made in section 246A of the Act. The first issue raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that where the Assessing Officer had issued the intimation under section 200A of the Act, then the same is appealable under

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. THE INDIAN NEWS PAPER SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deduction is required to be made. 11. After careful consideration of the above submissions, contentions and legal propositions of both the parties in the light of factual matrix of present case, we observe that it is argued on behalf of the assessee that the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority in its computation of income has not included the lease

KDP BUILDWELL P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Kdp Buildwell Pvt. Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, A-213, 1St Floor, Shanti Gopal Chamber, Ghaziabad. Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan :Aabcs6353E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Order : 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Kanpur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.03.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Conducted On 26.09.2014 On The Premises Of The Assessee Comprising Kdp/Mgp Group Of Cases. Based On The Incriminating Material Found During The Search, A Notice

TDS and amount remained to be paid was Rs.26,48,143/- on or before 29.11.2014 as per section 140A of the Act. He observed that as per ITR no self-assessment tax was paid by the assessee and the said amount remained unpaid at the time of 3 filing of above return which was subsequently paid by the assessee

VIKRAM BHARDWAJ,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(5), NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

TDS deducted by the employer of Rs.1,36,057/-. Thus, advance tax on return of income had already been paid by the assessee, and therefore, provision of Section 249

AISHANI CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

TDS. Accordingly, we hold that the CIT(A) fell in error in not admitting the appeal by invoking the provision of section 294(4)(b). We further hold that the impugned order dismissing the appeal on the ground of non- compliance of Section 249

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S AGILUS DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Vs. M/S Agilus Diagnostics Circle-73(1), Room Ltd, No.413, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 306, Tower A, Unitech Bhawa, Laxmi Nagar, Cyber Park, Sector 39, Delhi Gurugram 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs 2809 J Appellant .. Respondent

Section 201 of IT Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT, reported at (2007) 8 SCC 463; ITO v. Alfred Allan Advertising, reported at [2006] 8 SOT 312 (Delhi); CIT (TDS) v. D.P. Vekaria, reported at [2014] 48 taxmann.com 249

MRINAL ROY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1682/Del/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2009-10

TDS of Rs. 12,36,240/-. 4. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that the Challan for fee under section 249

SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

TDS u/s 199 of the Act. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in failing to appreciate that the credit of the tax granted of Rs. 71,20,267/- instead of Rs. 80,16,290/- was without any basis or material and was thus unsustainable. Infact even the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ACIT, CIRCLE-77(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Allowed

Bench: the Hon’ble Tribunal was penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO.

249/ as "Interest on EDC & IDC charges" without deducting TDS on it during the period under consideration. The Assessing Officer had held that the appellant was liable to deduct TDS @10% on 'Interest on EDC /IDC charges paid as per section

ACIT, CIRCLE-77(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Allowed

Bench: the Hon’ble Tribunal was penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO.

249/ as "Interest on EDC & IDC charges" without deducting TDS on it during the period under consideration. The Assessing Officer had held that the appellant was liable to deduct TDS @10% on 'Interest on EDC /IDC charges paid as per section

CHANDRA SHEKHAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblechandra Shekhar Aggarwal Vs Acit R-159, Circle-61(1) New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi New Delhi Aacpa6665M (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 199 of the Act give credit when he restricted the credit of TDS to Rs.79,560/- as against credit to be allowed of RS.7,95,600/- and thus he ought to have followed the order of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of the appellant for Assessment Year 2011-12 and held specifically held that action of Ld. Assessing

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194H does not apply as mechanism to deduct TDS fails. Reliance is placed on: i.M. S. Hameed Vs. Director of State Lotteries (249

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194H does not apply as mechanism to deduct TDS fails. Reliance is placed on: i.M. S. Hameed Vs. Director of State Lotteries (249

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194H does not apply as mechanism to deduct TDS fails. Reliance is placed on: i.M. S. Hameed Vs. Director of State Lotteries (249

AJAY PAL SINGH,NOIDA GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) NOIDA GBN, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

249, grant immunity from imposition of penally under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within a period of one month from

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] assessee from T. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there were no technical services provided by T to the assessee and, therefore, the provisions of s. 9(l)(vii) did not apply. Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal after taking into consideration the agreement