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

3) of the Act, wherein the duty of person was to file the statement within prescribed time. Reference was made to Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short 'Rules'), which provides the time limit to file the statement of tax deducted at source. He further pointed out that the Act requires quarterly statement to be filed within

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

3) of the Act, wherein the duty of person was to file the statement within prescribed time. Reference was made to Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short 'Rules'), which provides the time limit to file the statement of tax deducted at source. He further pointed out that the Act requires quarterly statement to be filed within

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

3) of the Act, wherein the duty of person was to file the statement within prescribed time. Reference was made to Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short 'Rules'), which provides the time limit to file the statement of tax deducted at source. He further pointed out that the Act requires quarterly statement to be filed within

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

249" V. M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. VI. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VII. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) VIII. CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) I.. ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) 5. Whether in the facts

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted by EPSL was also kept in abeyance. In this return, it was claimed that the capital gains arising from transfer of shares in VEL was not chargeable to tax in India as per Article 13(4) of the tax treaty. The assessment proceedings in both the cases were taken up subsequent to the decision

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

3 are allowed”' 9. After careful consideration of the contentions and submissions both parties in this regard, at the outset, we observe that as per facts recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the hon'ble High Court of Mumbai quashed the order of the TDS Officer, Mumbai} leaving the issue open for appropriate competent authority to initiate TDS

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS liability arising out of the contractual obligation. The Reliance is placed on the above mentioned pronouncement of ITAT Mumbai in case of M/S Bob Cards Ltd., Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax, held that payment made as a result of contractual liability is an allowable expenditure. The same view has been expressed by the High Court of Madras

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS liability arising out of the contractual obligation. The Reliance is placed on the above mentioned pronouncement of ITAT Mumbai in case of M/S Bob Cards Ltd., Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax, held that payment made as a result of contractual liability is an allowable expenditure. The same view has been expressed by the High Court of Madras

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 40(a)(i) are directed to be deleted. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal stand allowed. In view of this decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee, the advance ruling relied on by the ld. DR does not help the revenue, as the said ruling is binding on that applicant and not upon the Tribunal u/s. 245S

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

3 where the complete details are provided for. Hence he submitted that appellant had worked out the provision on a scientific basis, which is clearly borne out 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 55 of 484 from the contemporaneous

INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORG

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012 Page

INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of

3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest

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

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS under section 195 of the Act on commission payments and consequently invoked provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. For holding so, the AO has branded such commission expenses as ‘fee for technical services’ [chargeable under the Act under source rule of S. 9 of the Act] on the ground that such commission agents are engaged

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA(3) of the Income Tax Rules is entirely erroneous and wholly unsustainable in law and overlooks the facts of the instant case and has arbitrarily ignored that it is not a case where the assessee has not included any income on which tax has been deducted at source. 4.1 That

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