THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DENSO INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 271C as the Respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source.” The resultant position as far as the order dated 29th January 2003 of the CIT (A) reversing the penalty order of the AO is concerned, it stood affirmed by the ITAT by its order dated 13th

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DENSO INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 271C as the Respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source.” The resultant position as far as the order dated 29th January 2003 of the CIT (A) reversing the penalty order of the AO is concerned, it stood affirmed by the ITAT by its order dated 13th

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DENSO INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 271C as the Respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source.” The resultant position as far as the order dated 29th January 2003 of the CIT (A) reversing the penalty order of the AO is concerned, it stood affirmed by the ITAT by its order dated 13th

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DENSO INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 271C as the Respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source.” The resultant position as far as the order dated 29th January 2003 of the CIT (A) reversing the penalty order of the AO is concerned, it stood affirmed by the ITAT by its order dated 13th

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DENSO INDIA LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Section 271C as the Respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source.” The resultant position as far as the order dated 29th January 2003 of the CIT (A) reversing the penalty order of the AO is concerned, it stood affirmed by the ITAT by its order dated 13th

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

271C on this stage because assessee was liable to pay or deduct the TDS at the payment of contractual charges which has already been proved by AOs order.” 4. Ld. ACIT (TDS) thus levied penalty under section

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS under section 1941 of the Act in respect of minimum guarantee expenses. 3.1 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the arrangement entered into by the Appellant requiring payment of minimum guarantee charges to hotel operators was in the nature of rent falling within the scope of section

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS under section 1941 of the Act in respect of minimum guarantee expenses. 3.1 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the arrangement entered into by the Appellant requiring payment of minimum guarantee charges to hotel operators was in the nature of rent falling within the scope of section

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS under section 1941 of the Act in respect of minimum guarantee expenses. 3.1 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the arrangement entered into by the Appellant requiring payment of minimum guarantee charges to hotel operators was in the nature of rent falling within the scope of section

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS under section 1941 of the Act in respect of minimum guarantee expenses. 3.1 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the arrangement entered into by the Appellant requiring payment of minimum guarantee charges to hotel operators was in the nature of rent falling within the scope of section

M/S. VIRGIN MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivirgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit(Tds), C/O. Tata Teleservices Ltd, Range-51, Room No. 406, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2A, Old Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi District Centre, Laxmi Pan: Aadcr5798J Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271C for non-deduction of TDS should be levied for the amount of ₹ 1 1329146 on account of an asset

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORP. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and COs of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS in such circumstances. 18. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A has correctly deleted the demand raised under section 201 (1) and interest under section 201 (1A) of The Income Tax Act and consequent penalty under section 271C

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORP. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and COs of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS in such circumstances. 18. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A has correctly deleted the demand raised under section 201 (1) and interest under section 201 (1A) of The Income Tax Act and consequent penalty under section 271C

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

Section 271C of the Act was levied for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act on payment

SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE 77, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS under section 194C of the Act on payment of EDC to HUDA which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law. I.T.A. No.5842/Del/2019 2 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming penalty levied under section 271C

PRECISION REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 271C of the Act is leviable for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C on the payments made towards

PRECISION REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 271C of the Act is leviable for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C on the payments made towards

PRECISION REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 271C of the Act is leviable for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C on the payments made towards