DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

TDS deduction on the reimbursement payment to JVC. 4. Unreconciled difference: A massive difference of Rs. 58,85,443 existed between the assessee's booking of reimbursement (Rs. 49,32,507) and the JVC's recording of receipt of these funds (Rs. 10,39,2583 [sic in original document]). The assessee's explanation (differing finalization dates) was unsatisfactory . Revenue

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 returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

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 returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

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 returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

253 8602 3 24Q 15.01.2015 25.06.2015 161 32200 - 3 26Q 15.01.2015 15.07.2015 181 36200 5792 4 24Q 15.05.2015 25.06.2015 41 8200 - 4 26Q 15.05.2015 18.08.2015 95 19000 2850 TOTAL 296200 45248 18. He submitted that the assessee has challenged the late filing fee of Rs. 1,50,000/- and interest u/s. 220 (2) for the TDS returns filed prior

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 returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

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 returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

TDS) is required to pass a common order u/s 201 covering sub-sections (1) and (1A) and accordingly, CIT(A) is also obliged to pass one common order u/s 250(6) covering the liability of the assessee under both the sub-sections of section 201. Section 253

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

TDS) is required to pass a common order u/s 201 covering sub-sections (1) and (1A) and accordingly, CIT(A) is also obliged to pass one common order u/s 250(6) covering the liability of the assessee under both the sub-sections of section 201. Section 253

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

TDS) is required to pass a common order u/s 201 covering sub-sections (1) and (1A) and accordingly, CIT(A) is also obliged to pass one common order u/s 250(6) covering the liability of the assessee under both the sub-sections of section 201. Section 253

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEWBURY HOLDING TWO LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

TDS.\n10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an\n`eligible assessee' for the purpose of Section 144C(15)(b) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. The said provision reads as under:\n“(15) For the purposes of this section, —\n(a) \"Dispute Resolution Panel\" means a collegium comprising of three\nCommissioners of Income-tax constituted

M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

TDS has been deducted by assessee under 194J instead of section 194C as held by assessing officer in order passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The penalty u/s 271C has been levied on entire amount paid by assessee to U.P Jal Nigam. In our considered view, levy of penalty under section 271C for failure

CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 8 December 2017 (received on 22 March 2018) passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case

CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 8 December 2017 (received on 22 March 2018) passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case

CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 8 December 2017 (received on 22 March 2018) passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CADBURY INDIA LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

TDS under Section 194C and not under 194I and 194J, learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgments, namely, National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2005) 3 SOT (Del), Woodward Governor India P. Ltd v. CIT (2002) 253

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SH. SUBASH DABAS, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 2(22)(e) of the Act made addition of Rs.1,32,61912/- to the total income of the assessee being accumulated profit of the current year available for distribution of dividend after tax on the ground that the assessee has received advance of Rs.14,82,00,000/-from M/s Tirupati Constwell Pvt. Ltd. in which he is a director

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SH. SUBASH DABAS, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 2(22)(e) of the Act made addition of Rs.1,32,61912/- to the total income of the assessee being accumulated profit of the current year available for distribution of dividend after tax on the ground that the assessee has received advance of Rs.14,82,00,000/-from M/s Tirupati Constwell Pvt. Ltd. in which he is a director