PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A; disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36

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

TDS had to be deducted under Section 194-C or 194-I of the Act was not a settled one. This explains why the CBDT itself had to issue circulars clarifying the position. Even this Court was persuaded to again frame a question on the issue in its order dated 5th September 2005. 36

HEBE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of Finance Act 2021, Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 and the specific amendments which will take effect from 01.04.2021, we hereby hold that no disallowance is called for belated payment of the employee’s contribution to the respective ESI and EPF fund

M/S. CBRE SOUTH ASIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10

section 36(l)(ii) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that once the payment has been paid in terms of the Board Resolution and as part of the entitlement to receive commission on the services rendered on which TDS

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant to the present issue.\n12. Further as held in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court explained the distinction between the terms 'derived from'\n27\nITA Nos.319 & 320/Del/2025\nITA Nos.577& 578/Del/2025\nITA

INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

36, 58,200/- are not raised by the appellant. This dispute, the appellant has to settle with the party Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. As the third party is showing specific transaction date with specific date of deducting TDS and TDS was also deposited in the Government account, unless this 26AS is revised by the said party I.T.A. No.622/DEL/2018

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under section 234D of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under section 234D of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under section 234D of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under section 234D of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under

M/S. SRC AVIATION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Src Aviation Pvt. Ltd, Circle-22(2), 507, G-5, Building, New Delhi Terminal1, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan: Aabcs2455F (Appellant) (Respondent) Src Aviation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 507, G-5, Building, Circle-22(2), Terminal1, Igi Airport, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcs2455F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS provisions are not applicable, as the food is not served to the passengers by the supplier but by the in-flight crew. 8. On hearing the parties, the brief fact shows that the payment is made only for the supply of foods but not for service of the food. Nevertheless, the learned CIT appeal has allowed the claim

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MENORA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1 Uiii) Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 3125/Del/2016 and 2716/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) 1. It is seen from the return of income and Memorandum of Association of the assessee company that the assessee company was incorporated on 05.02.2009 with the main object with the main object of carrying on business of contractor, builder, Infrastructure

M/S. MENORA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1 Uiii) Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 3125/Del/2016 and 2716/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) 1. It is seen from the return of income and Memorandum of Association of the assessee company that the assessee company was incorporated on 05.02.2009 with the main object with the main object of carrying on business of contractor, builder, Infrastructure

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

36. Now, coming to the connected issue raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee by way of ground in some of the appeals appeal No. 1 that whether any appeal is maintainable against the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act and/or order passed under section 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act by Assessing Officer in charging

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

36. Now, coming to the connected issue raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee by way of ground in some of the appeals appeal No. 1 that whether any appeal is maintainable against the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act and/or order passed under section 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act by Assessing Officer in charging