ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. FUGRO GEOTEAM AS, DEHRADUN

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

279 ITR 310 (SC) observed: "An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

section 196 are clearly applicable in the instant case, and accordingly, no TDS can be deducted on payment made to government. In addition to the aforesaid, during the course of hearing the assessee has submitted as under: “In a taxing Act, one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendement. There

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

section 196 are clearly applicable in the instant case, and accordingly, no TDS can be deducted on payment made to government. In addition to the aforesaid, during the course of hearing the assessee has submitted as under: “In a taxing Act, one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendement. There

M/S UNITECH LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

TDS on account of service tax is factually and legally misconceived and therefore, no disallowance was warranted under section 40a(ia) of the Act. 10.3 That even otherwise, in any case, no disallowance was warranted under section 40a(ia) of the Act as the entire sum stood paid during the year. 11 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

CIENA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS Ward- 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi (“AO”). 2.(a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming that the appellant had failed to deduct the tax of Rs. 39,09,666/-. (b) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the fact that supply of hardware and software

CIENA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS Ward- 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi (“AO”). 2.(a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming that the appellant had failed to deduct the tax of Rs. 39,09,666/-. (b) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the fact that supply of hardware and software

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)

1,47,32,279 as on 31.03.09 basically due to application of interest of Rs. 20,02,054 which is well subject to TDS and all such lenders are regularly assessed to Income Tax and paying taxes as per the Laws of the Land. Furthermore as regards to higher rate of interest to Unsecured Lenders, this is pertinent to mention

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RISHIKESH PROPARTIES PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

279/-. The Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and Notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, on 20th February, 2008. During the Assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the Assessee had received cash aggregating to Rs. 5,02,03,000/- from three companies. The AO in light of the aforesaid facts, passed the assessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RISHIKESH BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

279/-. The Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and Notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, on 20th February, 2008. During the Assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the Assessee had received cash aggregating to Rs. 5,02,03,000/- from three companies. The AO in light of the aforesaid facts, passed the assessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RUPA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

279/-. The Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and Notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, on 20th February, 2008. During the Assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the Assessee had received cash aggregating to Rs. 5,02,03,000/- from three companies. The AO in light of the aforesaid facts, passed the assessment

VARDHMAN INFRA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-78(3), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.511/Del./2024, A.Y. 2014-15 Vardhman Infra Developers Income Tax Officer, (P) Ltd., 401-414, C-58, Ward-78(3), 4Th Floor, Shahpuri, Vs. Income Tax Office, Tirath Singh, Tower Dda, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan: Aadcv3838M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2014-15 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

279(2) of the Act for offence of late deposit of TDS after deduction of tax punishable under section 276B of the Act. Therefore, it submitted that there was reasonable cause for late issuance of TDS Certificates. It was also brought to the notice Range Head-TDS that the offence punishable under section 276B of the Act was compounded

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method

ICEC INDIA P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. C.I.T ALCATEL

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under