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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS under section 1941A while making payment to Logix Builders and Promoters Private Limited.\n\n(ii) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee that the provisions of section 1941A are not applicable and hence no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made

ACIT, CIRCLE-74(1), NEW DELHI vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.5318 To 5320/Del/2019 Asstt. Years: 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 194J. The AO passed an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act raising a demand of Rs.79,36,269/- which comprised of the shortfall towards TDS

ACIT, CIRCLE-74(1), NEW DELHI vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.5318 To 5320/Del/2019 Asstt. Years: 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 194J. The AO passed an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act raising a demand of Rs.79,36,269/- which comprised of the shortfall towards TDS

ACIT, CIRCLE-74(1), NEW DELHI vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.5318 To 5320/Del/2019 Asstt. Years: 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 194J. The AO passed an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act raising a demand of Rs.79,36,269/- which comprised of the shortfall towards TDS

TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

269/- to M/s. Dart Industries Inc., 27 USA (Dart). The assessee was asked by the Ld. AO to furnish the details of TDS on the same to which the assessee responded that no TDS has been deducted on these charges because they were merely in the nature of reimbursement and the same cannot partake the character of income

ODISHA TELEVISION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

TDS of Rs.3,11,77,269/-and TCS of Rs.3,684/ which is also as\nper Form No.26AS, in the intimation dated 14.12.2022\n8. Charge of Interest u/s.234B and 234Cof the Act amounting\nRs.3,66,63,720/- and Rs.5,02,345/- respectively\na. That the assessee denies its liability for interest of Rs.3,66,63,720/- and\nRs.5

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. GE PACKAGED POWER INC

269 (Delhi SB) and Qualcomm Inc. v. ADIT, 153 TTJ 513 (Del.), for this proposition. 7. The question that arises for consideration is whether interest should be levied on the assessee under Section 234B, on the ground of non-payment of advance tax. The case of the Revenue, in short, is that the position

ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RCUBE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma Ita No. 6879/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16

269 U(f)(i) r.w.s. 53A of the transfer of property Act observed that : “5.3 The assessee argued that it has made huge investment for construction. As per the balance sheet there has not been addition in fixed assets except vehicle and other small office equipment. Out of total block of fixed assets of Rs. 128.63 Lacs, vehicles constitute

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the above, the decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra) would support the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. In view of the totality of above facts, we are unable to uphold the view of the TPO that

ITO, WARD- 76(1), NEW DELHI vs. TURNER GENERAL ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshito Vs. Turner General Ward – 76(1) Entertainment Networks New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Radisson Commercial Plaza, National Highway-8, Mahipalpur – 26, Pan No. Aaccn 3434 E New Delhi- 110 037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Shalini, Adv. Shri Sudip Loth, Adv. Revenue By Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.6597/Del/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 41, New Delhi In Appeal No. 289/16-17 Dated 16.08.2017 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Penalty Order U/S 271C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred 2

TDS) ought to have passed the order on or before 31.03.2015 and since the penalty order was passed on 25.02.2016, it would be barred by limitation. We find that this dispute has been directly addressed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. reported in 378 ITR 614 (Del.) wherein

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 26: Risk prima facie passes with property:— ‘Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller’s risk until the property therein is transferred to the buyer, but when the property therein is transferred to the buyer, the goods are at the buyer’s risk whether delivery has been made or not……..” 7.5 We find that though

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

section 69C of the Act disregarding the submissions made by the Appellant in this regard. The Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has erred in: 13.1. making the addition of Rs. 269,241 merely on the basis of Individual Transaction Statement generated through internal system of the Income Tax Department wherein TDS

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

section 69C of the Act disregarding the submissions made by the Appellant in this regard. The Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has erred in: 13.1. making the addition of Rs. 269,241 merely on the basis of Individual Transaction Statement generated through internal system of the Income Tax Department wherein TDS

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. ASHOK KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6105/Del/2017: Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-26, 13, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Farms, New Delhi-110055 Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc1877D

TDS details. In light of the above, the affidavit so filed by the assessee is not acceptable and is just afterthought. 3.5 From the said agreement, it is clear that the said property was taken by the assessee to earn the rent from sub-tenancy. Hence the deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act is not allowable to the assessee

RAJEEV GARG & SONS (HUF),FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2010-11 Rajeev Garg & Sons (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward-Ii(2), Through Karta Rajeev Garg Faridabad. 785, Sector-15, Faridabad. Pan: Aabhr 3428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. Assessee(S) By : Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Faridabad, Vide Order Dated 22.07.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal As Under: 1. That The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Is Bad In Law & Additions Confirmed Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.That The Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Was Not Justified In Confirming Additions Of Rs. 604832/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) In Total Income For Not Deducting Tds From Various Payments. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Was Not Justified In Confirming Additions Of Rs.950000/- In Total Income U/S.68 On Account Of Unsecured Loans Taken From Smt. Madhu Garg & Shri Ankush Garg. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Was Not Justified In Confirming Disallowance Of Rs. 12140/- In Total Income Out Of Telephone Expenses On Account Of Personal Use. 5That The Ld. Cit(A) , Faridabad Was Not Justified In Confirming Disallowance Of Rs. 23780/- In Total Income Out Of Car Expenses For Personal Use. 6.That The Appellant Seeks The Leave Of Honorable Itat To Add, Modify, Amend Or Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing Or Before It. 2. The Assessee Does Not Press Grounds No.4 & 5, Therefore, Same Are Dismissed As Not Pressed. 2

section 40(a)(ia), on comparison between the proposed and enacted provision, the only conclusion which one can reach is that the legislature consciously replaced the words 'amounts credited or paid' with the word 'payable' in the final enactment. By changing the words from 'credited' or 'paid' to 'payable', the Legislative intent has been made clear that only outstanding amounts

CARGILL ASIA PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N Charyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Ita No.1438/Del./2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Ita No.5444/Del./2010 Assessment Year: 2007-8

269/- under section 234B of the Act as the provisions under section 210/211 for payment of advance tax are not applicable on the plant in view of the Delhi High Court ruling in the case of Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan. 7. The Ld. AO has erred in facts and in law in levying interest under section 234D

CARGILL ASIA PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N Charyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Ita No.1438/Del./2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Ita No.5444/Del./2010 Assessment Year: 2007-8

269/- under section 234B of the Act as the provisions under section 210/211 for payment of advance tax are not applicable on the plant in view of the Delhi High Court ruling in the case of Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan. 7. The Ld. AO has erred in facts and in law in levying interest under section 234D