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 issued intimation to the respective assessee under section 200A of the Act and levied late filing fees under section 234E of the Act. Aggrieved by the said intimation, in some of the cases, the assessee in some cases filed an application under section 154 of the Act also. However, the same were dismissed by the respective Assessing Officers

ASSERTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS as deducted therefore,\nin terms of provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, this amount is not\nallowable as expenditure in any of the subsequent AYs.\n\n12. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the\ncase, we find that assessee is following the POCM for recognizing its\nrevenue where the Revenue is recognized when

M/S. BAIN & COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act can be held liable to deduct such sums at a time when explanation 4 was factually not on the statute book, all deductions liable to be made and the assessment years in question being prior to the year 2012. 81. This question is answered by two latin maxims, lex non cogit

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 ITR ITA Nos.1397/2008, 1398/2008 and 429/2009 Page 8 of 10 745 (Del), CIT v. Itochu Corporation (2004) 268

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

TULIP INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6734/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.6735/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Ita No.6736/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

TULIP INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6734/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.6735/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Ita No.6736/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

TULIP INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6734/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.6735/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Ita No.6736/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmatdi Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Range-76, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi- 110001 Pan : Aaaci5799P (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such TDI Infrastructure Ltd. 10 payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SHYAM COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-77, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2015-16

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

ITO WARD-77(3), NEW DELHI vs. STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon'hle Supreme Court in the case

SH. RAJESH KUMAR KUKREJA,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2015-16 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kukreja Dcit (Tds) C 40, New Sabzi Mandi Vs. A-2D, 5Th Floor, Room Azadpur No.503 Delhi 110 033 Sector 24 Noida Pan: Afopk0672B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Pratap Gupta, C.A. Respondent By Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R Date Of Hearing 21/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2017 Order Per Beena A Pillai

section 200 A of the Act. 2.2. Ld.AR placed reliance on : (i) the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Gajanan Construction vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS) (2016) reported in 73 Taxman.com 380 (Pune- Trib.) (ii) in ITA 4050 to 4054/Del/2016 vide order dt. 9.11.2017 in M/s Samikaran Learning P Ltd. vs. TDS officer. 2.3. Ld.DR

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri [Dr.] B.R.R. Kumar

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under 6 I.T.A.Nos.5871 & 5872/Del/2019 a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri [Dr.] B.R.R. Kumar

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under 6 I.T.A.Nos.5871 & 5872/Del/2019 a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

REGARDS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-78, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 6535/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Regards Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 895, Nai Sarak, Range-78, New Delhi-110006 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccr5651D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Nargas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.11.2022

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

VATIKA SOVEREIGN PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7251 & 7252/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vatika Sovereign Park Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 621A, 6Th Floor, Devika Towers Circle-26(1) 6-Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi-110019 Pan No. Aafcp9383D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. In case even if tax was required to be deducted on such payment but not deducted under a bonafide belief then no penalty shall be leviable under section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case