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

288/- on account of interest on delay deposit of TDS.” 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. For the sake of brevity, we are taking the facts from the Assessment Year 2005-06 as most of the grounds are common. 3. Ground

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

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

section 191 of the Act and the judgment of Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs DCIT(TDS) (345 ITR 288) (All HC), as there

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

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

section 191 of the Act and the judgment of Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs DCIT(TDS) (345 ITR 288) (All HC), as there

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

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

section 191 of the Act and the judgment of Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs DCIT(TDS) (345 ITR 288) (All HC), as there

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

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

section 191 of the Act and the judgment of Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs DCIT(TDS) (345 ITR 288) (All HC), as there

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

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

section 191 of the Act and the judgment of Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs DCIT(TDS) (345 ITR 288) (All HC), as there

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

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

section 191 of the Act and the judgment of Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs DCIT(TDS) (345 ITR 288) (All HC), as there

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit the learned CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee from the records and allow the tax credit. However, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit the learned CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee from the records and allow the tax credit. However, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel

ACIT, TDS, NOIDA vs. M/S ST MICROELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Tds, Noida Plot No. 11, Knoledge Park-111, Greater Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacs3406M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Ca Date Of Hearing 19.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19/07/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Noida For Assessment Year 2007-08 Raising Following Grounds: “That Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Directing To Delete The Order U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The I.T. Act Passed By The Assessing Officer Ignoring The Fact That Assessee Must Follow The Mercantile System Of Accounting For These Payments & Erred In Further Allowing The Assessee To Follow The Cash System Of Accounting For These Payments Solely On The Grund Of Sap Environment Being Followed By The Assessee.” 2. The Facts In Brief Are That During Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Verification By The Tds Assessing Officer, It Was Observed That Tax Was Not Deducted On Certain Expenses Debited In Profit & Loss. The Assessing Officer Called For The Tax Audit Report In Form No. 3 Cd & Observed That The Auditor Had Also Pointed

288 of 1980were relied upon. It was the contention that it is not a constructive payment made to any payee as per the provisions of the Act and when assessee is making payment, it was following the TDS provisions. It was further submitted that when payee is not known or determined, TDS cannot be made and relied on the order

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

TDS on computer maintenance expenses is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the payment has been made for using one common global portal shared by all global companies professionally and, thus, does not make available any technology. Thus, in effect, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO and held

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishivodafone Mobile Services Ltd, Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-51(1), Essar Mobile Services Ltd), New Delhi Circle Office, C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacs4457Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 191 of the Act and the judgement of Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs DCIT(TDS) (345 ITR 288) (All HC), as there

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CAMPUS EAI INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Further, the provisions of section 195 needs to be read with the provisions of sections 5 and 9 of the Act. A combined reading would suggest that the payment made not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source was not liable to be deducted. From the discussion

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 201 (1A) of the Act, in respect of failure to deduct tax at source in respect of the aforesaid payments made to various distributors/dealers. During the relevant previous year, the assessee deducted tax at source amounting to Rs. 2,22,40,792/- from the amounts paid as salary. The rate of tax deducted at source was calculated at "average

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 201 (1A) of the Act, in respect of failure to deduct tax at source in respect of the aforesaid payments made to various distributors/dealers. During the relevant previous year, the assessee deducted tax at source amounting to Rs. 2,22,40,792/- from the amounts paid as salary. The rate of tax deducted at source was calculated at "average

M/S. SPICE MOBILITY LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 201 (1A) of the Act, in respect of failure to deduct tax at source in respect of the aforesaid payments made to various distributors/dealers. During the relevant previous year, the assessee deducted tax at source amounting to Rs. 2,22,40,792/- from the amounts paid as salary. The rate of tax deducted at source was calculated at "average

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 201 (1A) of the Act, in respect of failure to deduct tax at source in respect of the aforesaid payments made to various distributors/dealers. During the relevant previous year, the assessee deducted tax at source amounting to Rs. 2,22,40,792/- from the amounts paid as salary. The rate of tax deducted at source was calculated at "average

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