YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

40A(5) of the Act now stands, it is not possible to answer the said question in the manner suggested by the Department. Accordingly, we answer question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

40A(5) of the Act now stands, it is not possible to answer the said question in the manner suggested by the Department. Accordingly, we answer question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

40A(5) of the Act now stands, it is not possible to answer the said question in the manner suggested by the Department. Accordingly, we answer question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 40A(2) of the Act as well as applicability of TDS provisions on the same. 40. In this regard

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

section 40A(2) of the Act as well as applicability of TDS provisions on the same.\n40. In this regard

UNIVERSE HEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 8125/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Universe Heights (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 5G/1, Everest 46C, Chowringee Ward-27(1), Road, Kolkata-700071 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu4605K

TDS has also been deducted on the amount of interest paid during the year. We find that PB-89 is ledger account of Sh. Amit Tak in the books of assessee for the period from 01-04-2014 to 31-03-2015. PB- 92 is confirmed copy of ledger account from Sh. Anil Tak, showing the amount of loan, interest

ITO WARD-27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNIVERSAL HEIGHTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 8125/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Universe Heights (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 5G/1, Everest 46C, Chowringee Ward-27(1), Road, Kolkata-700071 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu4605K

TDS has also been deducted on the amount of interest paid during the year. We find that PB-89 is ledger account of Sh. Amit Tak in the books of assessee for the period from 01-04-2014 to 31-03-2015. PB- 92 is confirmed copy of ledger account from Sh. Anil Tak, showing the amount of loan, interest

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid any future hassles for both resident as well as non-resident. In our view, Sections 195(2) and 195(3) are safeguards. The said provisions are of practical importance. This reasoning of ours is based on the decision

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The salary paid to these employees is reflected by them in their income tax returns which have been accepted by the Department. The salary paid to the employees in a sum of Rs.18,18,465/- in preceding A.Y. 2009-2010 have been accepted by the Department including Rs.8 lakhs paid to these

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The salary paid to these employees is reflected by them in their income tax returns which have been accepted by the Department. The salary paid to the employees in a sum of Rs.18,18,465/- in preceding A.Y. 2009-2010 have been accepted by the Department including Rs.8 lakhs paid to these

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The salary paid to these employees is reflected by them in their income tax returns which have been accepted by the Department. The salary paid to the employees in a sum of Rs.18,18,465/- in preceding A.Y. 2009-2010 have been accepted by the Department including Rs.8 lakhs paid to these

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The salary paid to these employees is reflected by them in their income tax returns which have been accepted by the Department. The salary paid to the employees in a sum of Rs.18,18,465/- in preceding A.Y. 2009-2010 have been accepted by the Department including Rs.8 lakhs paid to these

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

40A(2) of the Act. 7.3 Without Prejudice, that the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing j purchases to the extent of Rs. 23.52 crores, with respect to purchases from aforesaid? related parties (in terms of AS-18) for which no comparable instance supporting the allegation of excessive payment, was available, on pure estimate basis

SIGMA RESEARCH & CONSULTING PVT. LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

The appeal is allowed and the addition made under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

40A(2)(a); i.e. fair market value of the goods, services and facilities and whether they were for legitimate use of the business; and benefit derived or accruing to the assessee from the expenditure so incurred. Benefit accruing to the company or the assessee in the context of the section has to be viewed in a pragmatic

KEC- PLR- KPIPL JV,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

section 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed the decision of the Hon'ble J&K High Court in the case of Soma TRG Joint Venture vs. CIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 425 (J&K) and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision

KEC ASIAKOM UB JV,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

section 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed the decision of the Hon'ble J&K High Court in the case of Soma TRG Joint Venture vs. CIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 425 (J&K) and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

40a(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS thereon. 11. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,70,864/- on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of legal & professional expenses for failure to deduct TDS. 12. Whether, on the facts and circumstances

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

section 928BA (meaning of specified domestic transaction.” Estimation of Profit/Section 40A(2)(b): 4. Brief background of the case is as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products Ltd. ('TPPL') and M/s JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd. ('JWIL') had entered into an agreement to form a Joint Venture (JV) with the specific purpose of bidding for construction