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

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

249(4) of the Act will not apply as there is no occasion to pay advance tax in this case as the assessee is claiming refund on account of excess deduction of 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

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

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

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

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order dated 31

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

B) Assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act on 29.10.2013. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was disposed off vide order dated 3.5.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Pr. CIT issued a show cause notice dated 16.3.2016 relevant portion of the show cause notice is reproduced as 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

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

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

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

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

4 above reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) recorded his findings that the TPO considered all international transactions in his order and TP adjustment was only suggested to Employees Secondment of Rs. 34,11,787/- and Business Restructuring of Rs. 12,29,949/- and therefore, these issue should not have been re-examined by the AO afresh. We entirely agree

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

4 above reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) recorded his findings that the TPO considered all international transactions in his order and TP adjustment was only suggested to Employees Secondment of Rs. 34,11,787/- and Business Restructuring of Rs. 12,29,949/- and therefore, these issue should not have been re-examined by the AO afresh. We entirely agree

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

b. Companies that do not have significant (less than 25%) foreign exchange earnings; c. Companies that have substantial (excess of 25%) related party transactions; d. Companies incurring persistent losses Accordingly, the appellant has analysed the OP/TC ratio of the following 10 comparable companies: S. Company Name OP/OC Economic Activity No. % 1 Birla Power Solutions -3.70% Gensets 2 Greaves Cotton

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

B) The Assessee is a company registered U/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a non-profit making company formed with the object of functioning as an apex organization to protect the interest of press in India. The Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) passed order dated 27.03.2014 U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of Income

JEETA RAM,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(3), FARIDABAD

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

249(4)(B) of the Act, but he failed to appreciate that advance tax in the form of TDS of Rs.3,68,790/- 5 already lies in the account of assessee which is refundable to the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee was not able to respond to the notices issued under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

4 and 5; 24. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. New Skies Satellite BV (supra), we hold that where the provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of Income-tax Act and the definition of 'royalty' having not been undergone any amendment in DTAA, the assessee was not liable to withhold

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

4 and 5; 24. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. New Skies Satellite BV (supra), we hold that where the provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of Income-tax Act and the definition of 'royalty' having not been undergone any amendment in DTAA, the assessee was not liable to withhold