COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1 vs. M/S ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT.LTD.)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS and for failure to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within time prescribed in sub Section 3 of Section 200 or the proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 206 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CITA. The appeal was allowed and the penalty

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs. Exxon Mobil Lubricants P. Ltd., Circle-11(1), Ernst & Young Tower, New Delhi. B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. Pan Aabce0207H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit- Dr Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

292 Equipment Motor 1,117 - 834 283 755 214 686 283 - 362 Vehicles Telecommu- 2,618 4,580 - 2,198 87 610 - 697 6,501 2,531 nications TOTAL 73,583 8,823 9,300 73,106 20,73 15,082 4,282 31,531 41,575 52,852 Capital 2,182 advances GRAND 41,575 55,034 TOTAL Previous

M/S HONDA CARS IMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIOT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

TDS credit in the absence of any power of remand whereas the CIT(A) should have verified and allowed the claim himself. 15 That the AO has grossly erred in law and facts in charging interest under sections 2348, 234C and 234D of the Act. 16 That the AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section

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 (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS 3921 3921 0 Cash in hand 2676 10283 7607 Miscellaneous expenses (I&E) 1195085 1195085 25596860 45184391 19587531 Liabilities Original Revised Differences Capital -1184924 15528924 16713848 Central Bank of India-OD 1814789 1814789 0 Central Bank of India-TL 24964994 24959487 -5507 Unsecured loan 0 2879190 2879190 Audit fee payable

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS 3921 3921 0 Cash in hand 2676 10283 7607 Miscellaneous expenses (I&E) 1195085 1195085 25596860 45184391 19587531 Liabilities Original Revised Differences Capital -1184924 15528924 16713848 Central Bank of India-OD 1814789 1814789 0 Central Bank of India-TL 24964994 24959487 -5507 Unsecured loan 0 2879190 2879190 Audit fee payable

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS 3921 3921 0 Cash in hand 2676 10283 7607 Miscellaneous expenses (I&E) 1195085 1195085 25596860 45184391 19587531 Liabilities Original Revised Differences Capital -1184924 15528924 16713848 Central Bank of India-OD 1814789 1814789 0 Central Bank of India-TL 24964994 24959487 -5507 Unsecured loan 0 2879190 2879190 Audit fee payable

M/S. JMC AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

Accordingly this ground is allowed partly

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Jmc Automotive Vs. Ito Components Private Limited Ward-1(3), Plot No. -2, Dabua Nawada Faridabad Road, Dabua Extention Industrial Area, Faridabad Pan – Aabcj6600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

292/- under the provision of section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating these as capital in nature. • Rs. 1,96,800/- under the provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.] • Rs. 3,01,629/- under the provision of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income

BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS form 26QB, section 194IA) amounting to Rs.4,98,66,600/- which was not disclosed in ITR as ITR for the assessment year 2014-15 was not filed. The case was reopened vide order under Section 148A sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act dated 22.07.2022. Notice under Section 148 was served upon the assessee

BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS form 26QB, section 194IA) amounting to Rs.4,98,66,600/- which was not disclosed in ITR as ITR for the assessment year 2014-15 was not filed. The case was reopened vide order under Section 148A sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act dated 22.07.2022. Notice under Section 148 was served upon the assessee

M/S R.K. JAIN INFRA PROJECTS P LTD,DELHI vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements. 1. CIT vs AmritlalBhogilal& Co.34 ITR 130 (SC) 2. CIT vs Smt. AnnapoornammaChandershekhar 17 Com 120 (Kar H.C.) 3. Gabriel India Limited, 203 ITR 108 (Bombay H.C.) 4. CIT vs Nirav Modi,390 ITR 292 (Bombay H.C.) 5. CIT vs Max India Ltd.295

NCR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(2) INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

292 ITR 416 (SC). It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the AO was not justified in making the transfer pricing adjustment. Consequently, making addition of Rs.43,91,20,359/- being the business income of PE taxable @ 40% plus applicable surcharge and cess. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out various discrepancies

M/S ECORYS NEDERLANDS B.V.,,DELHI vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2011-12

TDS on salary as per provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to do so the AO disallowed the amount of Rs. 73,17,159/- claimed as salary expenses and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee relying on various decisions submitted that

M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, original

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 263 was given only on TDS adjustment. Therefore, the other items taken-up in the impugned order would not survive under Law. He has therefore, submitted that assessment order passed by the A.O. is not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He has relied upon the following decisions. 9 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016

M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, original

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 263 was given only on TDS adjustment. Therefore, the other items taken-up in the impugned order would not survive under Law. He has therefore, submitted that assessment order passed by the A.O. is not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He has relied upon the following decisions. 9 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016

ASPECT SOFTWARE INC.,USA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2012-13 Ay: 2013-14

292 from supply of software to customers in India as ‘royalty’ under section 9 (l)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 Avoidance Agreement between India and United States of America (‘India - US tax treaty’). That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP have erred

ASPECT SOFTWARE INC.,USA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2012-13 Ay: 2013-14

292 from supply of software to customers in India as ‘royalty’ under section 9 (l)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 Avoidance Agreement between India and United States of America (‘India - US tax treaty’). That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP have erred