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; the Tribunal held 'yes' that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

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; the Tribunal held 'yes' that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

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; the Tribunal held 'yes' that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

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)

253 000 Verma 64947.38 Sq. Rs. 490 per Sq. 3,18,24, 25,00,0 00 Constructions Ft Ft. 216 Total 229216.16 11,06,8 2,,60,51 Sq. Ft. 9,021 ,0007 Opening value of building was Rs. 12,02,09,897/- addition during the year amounting to Rs. 3,23,47,187/- is shown. Assessee has not filed

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

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

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

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT 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

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

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)

253 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act') against the order dated 23 December 2021 passed by Commissioner of Income (Appeals) - 42, New Delhi [CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Act, on the following grounds: On the facts, in law and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A): General 1. erred in holding that the capital

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C(15)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said provision reads as under: “(15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C(15)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said provision reads as under: “(15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board