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

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(4

XL INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Xl India Business Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-9, New Delhi Ff-101, Building No. G-11, Sarines Sonia Sadan, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi Pan :Aaacx0309A (Appellant) (Respondent) & S.A. No.16/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2145/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Xl India Business Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-9, New Delhi Ff-101, Building No. G-11, Sarines Sonia Sadan, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi Pan :Aaacx0309A (Appellant) (Respondent)

249/-. The assessee’s contention has been that it had parked its funds generated out business activities in a short-term fixed deposit for the reasons that; S.A. No. 16/Del/2019 firstly, to mitigate interest cost on outstanding ECBs which it could not repay pending regulatory approvals; secondly, amount was kept as margin money for obtaining bank requirement by STPI authorities

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

4. We have perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities alongwith orders referred by the learned counsel for the assessee on the issue in dispute. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paras of the order dated 22.05.2018 of ITAT Delhi Benches passed in ITA Nos. 5321 to 5331/Del/2017 assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in the case

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

4. We have perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities alongwith orders referred by the learned counsel for the assessee on the issue in dispute. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paras of the order dated 22.05.2018 of ITAT Delhi Benches passed in ITA Nos. 5321 to 5331/Del/2017 assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in the case

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

4. We have perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities alongwith orders referred by the learned counsel for the assessee on the issue in dispute. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paras of the order dated 22.05.2018 of ITAT Delhi Benches passed in ITA Nos. 5321 to 5331/Del/2017 assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in the case

XL INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

TDS certificates and taxing it as ‘Income from Other Sources’. 3. Reduction in deduction claimed under section 10A of the 52,18,911 Act by making adjustment to ‘export turnover’ on account of unbilled revenue and sundry debtors 4. Disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(2)(b) 80,72,451 r.w.s. 92CA of the Act, alleging excess payment

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. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

4. The issue arising in all the appeals before us is against intimation issued under section 200A of the Act and / or order passed under section 154 of the Act in charging fees payable under section 234E of the Act. We therefore take up ITA No.1292/PN/2015 as the lead case. The issue raised in the set of appeals is charging

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

4. The issue arising in all the appeals before us is against intimation issued under section 200A of the Act and / or order passed under section 154 of the Act in charging fees payable under section 234E of the Act. We therefore take up ITA No.1292/PN/2015 as the lead case. The issue raised in the set of appeals is charging

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4), Mumbai, wrote a letter dated March 16. 20i I to the assessee addressed to the Mumbai address as to why the TDS has not been deducted on the lease premium payments to the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority. In response, the assessee. vide its letter dated March 29, 2011 challenged the jurisdiction of the Mumbai TDS Officer and explained

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

249/- i.e. of Rs. 4,89,168/- less Rs. 48,917/- and thus the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not only arbitrary but is without application of mind. 5 That even otherwise the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked that the assessee had furnished a complete reconciliation to establish that each of credit

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

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

249 (Chen) " M. L. Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1204/Del/2011) 14. The ld. CIT(A) also reproduced the submissions of the assessee on the issues raised by the AO in his remand report at pages no. 18 to 21 which read as under: “5.1 In paragraph 6 of the remand report, the Assessing Officer has contended that

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

249 (Chen) " M. L. Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1204/Del/2011) 14. The ld. CIT(A) also reproduced the submissions of the assessee on the issues raised by the AO in his remand report at pages no. 18 to 21 which read as under: “5.1 In paragraph 6 of the remand report, the Assessing Officer has contended that

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

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

4. We are of the considered view that the ld. AO had fallen in error to distinguish between contract "for service" and "not of service", which ld. CIT(A) has duly considered. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly relied the consultancy agreements, which made it evident that the Consultants act in their independent professional capacity while providing the concerned medical consultancy