MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

TDS certificates claimed through the revised return of Rs 3,55,99,213/- and during the course of assessment proceedings amounting to Rs. 6,73,540/-. 18 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in charging interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 19 That the Ld AO grossly erred in computing the interest

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

TDS is allowable business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. 4) The appellant craves, leaves to add, alter and/or amend all or any other foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. With respect to ground No. 1, it was contended before us that while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) Bangalore disallowed

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

TDS statement and consequently 26AS. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for conducting a proper enquiry by calling upon the necessary information from TCE and then decide the issue. Needless to say, the assessee be given a proper opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

TDS credit of Rs.31,95,97,761/- only against Rs. 33,76,81,853/- claimed by the appellant in the revised return of Income and/or before DRP/AO, thereby allowing a short-credit of Rs. 1,80,84,092/- 18. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in charging interest under sections 234B and 234C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

TDS credit of Rs.31,95,97,761/- only against Rs. 33,76,81,853/- claimed by the appellant in the revised return of Income and/or before DRP/AO, thereby allowing a short-credit of Rs. 1,80,84,092/- 18. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in charging interest under sections 234B and 234C

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

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 section

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

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 section

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

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 section

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

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 section

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishimotorola India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit, Motorola Excellence Centre, Gurgaon Circle, 415/2, Sector-14, Mg Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Motorola India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon Circle, Motorola Excellence Centre, Gurgaon 415/2, Sector-14, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Motorola Solutions India (P) Ltd, Vs. Acit, 415/2, Motorola Excellence Gurgaon Circle, Centre, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Motorola Solutions India (P) Gurgaon Circle, Ltd, Gurgaon 415/2, Motorola Excellence Centre, Mg Road, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv Shri Suvinay K. Dash, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2018

section 43B(f) of the Act were not applicable in the instant case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in remanding back to the Ld. AO the issue of verification of provision for leave encashment reversed during the year of Rs. 3,33,28,504/- when complete details in this regard were produced before the ld. CIT (Appeals

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XIII vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

TDS on or before the due date of filing of the return under Section 139(1), the sum shall be allowed as an expense in computing the income of the previous year. The two provisions are akin and the provisos to Sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

43B of the Act. 8.2 That the Assessing Officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in leveling false and baseless allegations of the appellant having, inter alia, hidden true nature of payment of excise duty, without appreciating that aforesaid amount had been paid by the assessee as excise duty and the same was duly certified by the tax auditors

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

43B of the Act. 8.2 That the Assessing Officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in leveling false and baseless allegations of the appellant having, inter alia, hidden true nature of payment of excise duty, without appreciating that aforesaid amount had been paid by the assessee as excise duty and the same was duly certified by the tax auditors

Commissioner of Income Tax XIII

TDS on or before the due date of filing of the return under Section 139(1), the sum shall be allowed as an expense in computing the income of the 2013:DHC:4434-DB ITA 24 & 218/2013 Page 26 of 27 previous year. The two provisions are akin and the provisos to Sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B

SMT MAHINDER KAUR CHHATWAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

section 43B amounting to Rs.1,26,125. This amount is proposed to be added back to assessee’s income”. This notice was replied by assessee vide reply dated 11th March, 2014 copy of which is filed at page 82 of the paper book in which assessee submitted that he already deposited the TDS

GOLFGREEN INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1)And The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

TDS is allowable business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act.” 3. At the outset, in this case, ld. Counsel of the assessee contended that the issues involved are squarely covered by the decision of ITAT in ITA No.264/del/2022 for AY 2019-20 in the case of Logix Heights Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 02.02.2023. 4. Per contra

MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

NEXGEN INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment