W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (I) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (I) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (I) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (I) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

DCIT, LAXMINAGAR vs. TURNER GENERAL ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MAHIPALPUR DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is partly

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Vs Turner General Laxmi Nagar Entertainment Net Works New Delhi India Limited Mahipalpur Delhi Tan No. Deln08096E (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) 2(2) Mumbai [2018] 92 taxmann.com 260(Mumbai) the coordinate Bench held as under :- 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused materials available on record in the light of the decisions cited. So far as fled statements of the issue is concerned, there is no dispute that in terms of Section 200(3

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

2) of the Act. It appears that 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 3 of 61 proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85 under Section 148 of the Act were dropped. We are not concerned with the said proceedings in the present appeals. We are also not concerned with the proceedings in respect

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

2) of the Act. It appears that 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 3 of 61 proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85 under Section 148 of the Act were dropped. We are not concerned with the said proceedings in the present appeals. We are also not concerned with the proceedings in respect

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

3) of the Act and penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act were simultaneously introduced. He further referred to the provisions of section 200A of the Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 for furnishing of TDS

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

3) of the Act and penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act were simultaneously introduced. He further referred to the provisions of section 200A of the Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 for furnishing of TDS

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)

Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. During assessment proceedings ld. AO enquired about the object, activity, receipt of fees, TDS its reconciliation with form no 26AS, service tax payments and its nature, details of donors/ contributors etc. There was huge communication by the assessee, which we will come to later on. Therefore, ld. AO held that

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

2) of the I.T. Act, and A.O. have been vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. In that event, if there is any dispute of the jurisdiction of the A.O, such question will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 124 of the Income Tax Act. However, in the present case, the Addl. CIT, Range

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) on the said provision for collection charges\nand thus, the same cannot be termed as contingent or notional in nature.\n5. That the NFAC erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant had\nmade similar provision in earlier year(s), which have always been accepted and\nallowed in the assessments completed in the past

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)

2 to 4 of Assessing Officer as under:- “Interest on Unsecured Loan Assessee filed the detail of unsecured loans vide reply dt.23.12.2011.Audit report file in Form 10B do not contain list of persons specified u/s 13(3) of I.T. Act 1961 in part II of Form 10B no comment for details is offered and against each clause Nil is written

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

3) of the Act and penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act were simultaneously introduced. He further referred to the provisions of section 200A of the Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 for furnishing of TDS

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

3) of the Act and penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act were simultaneously introduced. He further referred to the provisions of section 200A of the Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 for furnishing of TDS

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

3) of the Act and penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act were simultaneously introduced. He further referred to the provisions of section 200A of the Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 for furnishing of TDS

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

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

3 (vi) and the exclusions, the question had to be answered against the revenue. In view of the judgment of this court, - in Telsuo Mitera, the question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 4: Hypothetical Tax 44. This question arises in ITA Nos. 387/2008, 15/2010, 699/2010 and 1912/2010. In these cases the total

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

3 (vi) and the exclusions, the question had to be answered against the revenue. In view of the judgment of this court, - in Telsuo Mitera, the question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 4: Hypothetical Tax 44. This question arises in ITA Nos. 387/2008, 15/2010, 699/2010 and 1912/2010. In these cases the total