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

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

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

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

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

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

40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel and the employees have shown the same salary in their return of income, on which

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

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

40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel and the employees have shown the same salary in their return of income, on which

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

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

40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel and the employees have shown the same salary in their return of income, on which

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

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

40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel and the employees have shown the same salary in their return of income, on which

DCIT, CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Dcit, M/S Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No. 202 B, Vs Rajlok Building, 24, 2Nd Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Nehru Place, Estate, New Delhi-110019. New Delhi Pan- Aaacf1952D Revenue Assessee

TDS has been deducted on the said payments. In so far as, AO's finding regarding applicability of 40(a)(2)(b) provisions is concerned, the Ld. AR has rightly contended that the said 5.4. Section 40A

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

40A(2) of the Act as well as applicability of TDS provisions on the same. 40. In this regard, it is submitted that as explained above, the appellant is engaged in the business of trading activities on the online marketplace. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (‘ASSPL’) operates an online marketplace (www.amazon.in), which the appellant utilises for the purpose of selling

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

40A(2) of the Act as well as applicability of TDS provisions on the same.\n40. In this regard, it is submitted that as explained above, the appellant is engaged in the business of trading activities on the online marketplace. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (‘ASSPL') operates an online marketplace (www.amazon.in), which the appellant utilises for the purpose of selling

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SPORT STATION INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS. ii) The appellant craves to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee paid interest on certain persons covered u/s. 40A(2)(b) at the rates of ranging from 15-16%. Following

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

b) to Section 40A(2) of the Act. Assessing Officer in exercise of power vested vide Section 40A(2)(a) can examine such transactions having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which payment is made; or legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee; or benefit derived by or accruing