COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

36 of 61 in the assumption of jurisdiction and the orders of assessment in those proceedings cannot be held to be without jurisdiction and no suit will lie for impeaching them on the ground that Section 10(1) had not been followed. This must a fortiori be so when the appellant has itself submitted to the jurisdiction and made

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

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

36. The Tribunal held, after noticing the nature of the scheme that before attaining the age of 65 or before death, neither the assessee nor his survivors were entitled to get any benefit from the scheme and at the most the employee only had a contingent right which cannot attract Section 17(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal also

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

36. The Tribunal held, after noticing the nature of the scheme that before attaining the age of 65 or before death, neither the assessee nor his survivors were entitled to get any benefit from the scheme and at the most the employee only had a contingent right which cannot attract Section 17(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal also

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

36. The Tribunal held, after noticing the nature of the scheme that before attaining the age of 65 or before death, neither the assessee nor his survivors were entitled to get any benefit from the scheme and at the most the employee only had a contingent right which cannot attract Section 17(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal also

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

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. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- 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. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- 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. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- 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. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36

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)

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

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

Section Transaction Status Date of Remarks Amount Tax TDS . of Booking Date paid/Credited Deducted Deposited Booking 1 194J 31-Mar- F 20-May- " 462280.00 46228.00 46228.00 2014 2014 2 194J 31-Mar- F 20-May- " 358200.00 35820.00 35820.00 2014 2014 3 194J 31-Dec- F 15-Jan- 436856.00 43686.00 43686.00 2013 2014 4 194J

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:

36,985/- by M/s S.L. Enterprises, a proprietorship concern to M/s Ramsan Communications Ltd. in respect of sum of Rs. 2,41,50,000/- treated as deemed dividend therefore said company was compensated by way of interest paid by the assessee and assessee in real sense did not derive any benefit from the funds of the company

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

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

2 taxmann.com 32 (Del) and CIT v. Cadbury India Ltd (2011) 11 taxmann.com 66(Del) and submitted that there was reasonable cause for the Appellant‟s failure to deduct TDS under Section 194-I of the Act. 32. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the Revenue, first submitted that the conduct of the Assessee did not entitle

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI COUNTRYWIDE AUTO FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 36(2), the onus was on the assessee to produce the party-wise details alongwith their complete addresses, PANs, TANs so as to enable the Assessing Officer to make verification as to the correct nature of amount 11 claimed by the assessee. It is also made clear that once the assessee proceeds to set off the receivables (TDS