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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS 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. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT 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. 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

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

253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns/statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge

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

253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns/statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge

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

253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns/statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge

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)

section 11(5) of the Act. 21. The ld Assessing Officer has dealt with this issue vide page No. 8 to 13 as under:- “Construction of Building Assessee is running education institute and shown expenditure on land and building as per detail follows:- Head of Account Opening Addition during Closing Balance as on the year Balance

RRPR HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 254 of the Act defines the powers of the Tribunal in widest possible terms. Where it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a I.T.A. No.4700/Del/2014 14 permissible deduction is denied, there is no reason to prevent assessee from raising grievance before the Tribunal in this regard. In the similar vain, the ITAT is under solemn

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

5. In order to adjudicate the issue raised in these appeals, few material facts have to be considered. The assessee was required to deduct tax at source out of payments made on account of salary, interest, etc. for the respective quarters in the accounting period. The Act required the assessee to file quarterly TDS returns intimating the tax deducted

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

5. In order to adjudicate the issue raised in these appeals, few material facts have to be considered. The assessee was required to deduct tax at source out of payments made on account of salary, interest, etc. for the respective quarters in the accounting period. The Act required the assessee to file quarterly TDS returns intimating the tax deducted

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

5. She further drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2015 which elaborates the rationale for insertion of clause (c) in section 200A(I) in the statute. Para (I) & para (III) under the heading “L Rationalization of Measures ” which are relevant to the issue. 6. She also drew the attention of the Bench

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BIOSEED RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

5. Broadly speaking, these were the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides. However, before we embark upon a discussion of the issues at hand we feel that it would be appropriate if the contentions of the learned counsel are set out in somewhat greater detail. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant/revenue that section 234B provides

CIT vs. OCL INDIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

5. Broadly speaking, these were the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides. However, before we embark upon a discussion of the issues at hand we feel that it would be appropriate if the contentions of the learned counsel are set out in somewhat greater detail. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant/revenue that section 234B provides

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-1 vs. ALLIED STRIPS LTD

The appeals are dismissed

5. Broadly speaking, these were the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides. However, before we embark upon a discussion of the issues at hand we feel that it would be appropriate if the contentions of the learned counsel are set out in somewhat greater detail. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant/revenue that section 234B provides