HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

TDS certificates\nissued for FY 16-17 on sample basis, are enclosed as Enclosure-IV.\nThus, our submission is that, the entire collection expenditure, including provision\nmade for the purpose of business and services rendered by collection vendors\nduring the year 2016-17. is allowable as business expenditure to the assessee.\nTherefore, the question disallowance or making any addition

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS of Rs.190360 has been made by it.Thus it is clear that the payment is made for the use of infrastructure and support services rendered by the assessee. The assessee cannot claim that it is authorized agency for running of NSDC course and thus the argument that its courses are approved by government authorities are factually incorrect. 7.2 The assessee

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

TDS Payable 4.363.060 4.363.060 Other Current Liabilities 583.059 583.059 Provision for Interest on Loan 39.267.539 39.267.539 Liabilities (B) 44,483,658 44,483,658 C=(A+B) 1,243,424,451 2,984,397,259 Unsecured Loan (Thomson Press India Limited) 819.187,525 819,187,525 Total Firm Value 4.24.236.926 2.165.749.734 Net Finn Value 424,236,926 2

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

TDS Payable 4.363.060 4.363.060 Other Current Liabilities 583.059 583.059 Provision for Interest on Loan 39.267.539 39.267.539 Liabilities (B) 44,483,658 44,483,658 C=(A+B) 1,243,424,451 2,984,397,259 Unsecured Loan (Thomson Press India Limited) 819.187,525 819,187,525 Total Firm Value 4.24.236.926 2.165.749.734 Net Finn Value 424,236,926 2

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

section 194A of the I.T. Act. 11. Reliance has also placed on the following judgments :- 1. CIT, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [29] 182 Taxman 368 (SC) 2. CIT, Rajkot Vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya [2014] 52 taxman.com 27 (SC) 3. Surjit Kumar Chetal Vs. CIT-XV [2017] 86 taxmann.com 121 (Delhi) 4. Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

29. It was submitted that the term salary has wide connotation; according to the Random House Dictionary of the English language ―salary‖ has been defined as 2013:DHC:3744-DB ITA 441/2003 and connected cases Page 31 “A fixed compensation periodically paid to a person by regular work or services specially work other than that of manual, mechanical or mental

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

29. It was submitted that the term salary has wide connotation; according to the Random House Dictionary of the English language ―salary‖ has been defined as 2013:DHC:3744-DB ITA 441/2003 and connected cases Page 31 “A fixed compensation periodically paid to a person by regular work or services specially work other than that of manual, mechanical or mental

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

29. It was submitted that the term salary has wide connotation; according to the Random House Dictionary of the English language ―salary‖ has been defined as 2013:DHC:3744-DB ITA 441/2003 and connected cases Page 31 “A fixed compensation periodically paid to a person by regular work or services specially work other than that of manual, mechanical or mental

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

TDS) @ 10 per cent only on amount of Rs.13,43,02,195/- which is the interest portion and the remaining amount of Rs.3,85,10,725 being enhanced value and solatium not been considered for deduction of tax at source. Hence it is clear that the authority has not considered the entire amount as enhanced value of compensation attributable

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

TDS is required to be made on the service tax component under Section 194J of the Act.” 16. In view of this ground No.6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed holding that the service tax does not form part of gross receipts for the purpose of taxing income of the assessee u/s 44BB

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAMESH KUMAR PABBI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit Vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Circle – 62(1), A-41, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aanpp 5995 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr.D.R. Revenue By Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

29,190/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 02.03.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs.4,14,72,230/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 07.07.2017 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194-C of the Act and in fact the whole of the TDS at 2% was deducted. Therefore, according to Mr. Vohra, there was no failure to “deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act”. 29

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai. GIR/PAN : AAKCS9967K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR) Assessee by Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Date of hearing 06.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 25.04.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are directed against order dated 25/06/2012 of the learned Commissioner of Income

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

2) is not merely a provision to provide information to the ITO(TDS). It is a provision requiring tax to be deducted as source to be paid to the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non-resident. Therefore, Section 195 has to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, ie., Sections 4, 5 and 9. This

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 held as under: “55. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the relevant records placed before us. It was submitted by the parties that there is no change in the facts and circumstances

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

29 ITR 717 (SC)\nii.\nCrux of the pronouncements -aforementioned well-settled judicial pronouncements\nIt can be seen that the place of business has the crucial role to play in determining the jurisdiction of an assessee as the jurisdiction is also a matter of administrative convenience for both the assessee as well as the income tax authorities. Therefore

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, Income Tax, Circle-1(1), N-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aagpg8032N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Iv, New Delhi, Dated 27.02.2013, Passed For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. Whether The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 53,29,843/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Ignoring The Fact That The Advances Had Not Been Made In The Ordinary Course Of Business Expediency & The Assessee Had Been Regularly Repaying The Amount Received From The Company. Ii. The Appellant Craves Leave For Reserving The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary From The Company, Namely, M/S A.K.G. Industries

29,843/- to M/s A.K.J. Industries Pvt. Ltd., which is a substantial shareholders and director. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the said amount was in the nature of deemed dividend and therefore brought to tax in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Being aggrieved by this