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

TDS returns. Further, reference was made to sub-clauses under section 200A(1) of the Act, wherein clause (a) refers to the sum deducted and clause (b) refers to the interest, if any; and w.e.f. 01.07.2012, new section was introduced i.e.234E of the Act, under which it was provided that person shall be liable to deposit the tax deducted

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

TDS under section 192 of the Act, hence, cannot be treated as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the tax treaty. Accordingly, there was no obligation on the part of the Assessee to withhold tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Resultantly, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

Section 45 is that the\nproperty transferred must be a capital asset on the date of\ntransfer and that it is not necessary that it should have been\ncapital asset also on the date of its acquisition by the\nassessee. Thus this decision directly answers the question\nraised and concluded. This has been followed in a subsequent\ndecision reported

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

section 194A of the I.T. Act. 11. Reliance has also placed on the following judgments :- 1. CIT, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [29] 182 Taxman 368 (SC) 2. CIT, Rajkot Vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya [2014] 52 taxman.com 27 (SC) 3. Surjit Kumar Chetal Vs. CIT-XV [2017] 86 taxmann.com 121 (Delhi) 4. Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 194J of the Act would not be attracted. - Dishnet Wireless Limietd vs. DCIT(TDS) 45 ITR(T) 430 Chennai

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 194J of the Act would not be attracted. - Dishnet Wireless Limietd vs. DCIT(TDS) 45 ITR(T) 430 Chennai

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 194J of the Act would not be attracted. - Dishnet Wireless Limietd vs. DCIT(TDS) 45 ITR(T) 430 Chennai

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 194J of the Act would not be attracted. - Dishnet Wireless Limietd vs. DCIT(TDS) 45 ITR(T) 430 Chennai

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 194J of the Act would not be attracted. - Dishnet Wireless Limietd vs. DCIT(TDS) 45 ITR(T) 430 Chennai

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 194J of the Act would not be attracted. - Dishnet Wireless Limietd vs. DCIT(TDS) 45 ITR(T) 430 Chennai

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

TDS returns. Further, reference was made to sub-clauses under section 200A(1) of the Act, wherein clause (a) refers to the sum deducted and clause (b) refers to the interest, if any; and w.e.f. 01.07.2012, new section was introduced i.e. 234E of the Act, under which it was provided that person shall be liable to deposit the tax deducted

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

TDS returns. Further, reference was made to sub-clauses under section 200A(1) of the Act, wherein clause (a) refers to the sum deducted and clause (b) refers to the interest, if any; and w.e.f. 01.07.2012, new section was introduced i.e. 234E of the Act, under which it was provided that person shall be liable to deposit the tax deducted

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

TDS-1, Surat [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Gujrat). 8. Per Contra, the Learned DR relying upon the orders passed by the both authorities below, submitted that the Legislature introduced the provisions of section

KGL NETWORK (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. In the result, ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 24. On ground No.3, assessee-company challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs.8,17,807/- under

ITO WARD - 2, HISAR vs. HARI SINGH SAINI, HISAR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

45, 2016 as the same was applicable to the facts of this case. In its decision Hon'ble Gujrat High Court had followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ghanshyam HUF, 2009, 182 Taxmann 368, wherein it was held that interest ujs 28 of LAC Act, 1894 is part of compensation amount whereas

BHULE RAM SHARMA,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7085/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Bhule Ram Sharma, Vs Acit, Village-Nagla Charan Das, Po-Nepz, Circle-1, Phase-Ii, Noida, U.P.-201305 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Asrps4421C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

TDS u/s 194A has been duly deducted. The Assessing Officer allowed 50% of the interest received on the enhanced compensation and taxed an amount of Rs.83,04,689/-. 4. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under: “Viii. Income by way of interest received on compensation or enhanced

VODAFONE IDEA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), KARNAL

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS) Karnal. The Ld. DR had also pleaded 43 I.T.As. No. 118, 119, 120, 2466, 2467/DEL/2019 that since the Assessee had merged with Idea Cellular, the decision of the Delhi High Court should be applied. However, we find no merit in this contention since the way the position stands today the resulting company is Vodafone Idea Ltd. having jurisdiction

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, KARNAL

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS) Karnal. The Ld. DR had also pleaded 43 I.T.As. No. 118, 119, 120, 2466, 2467/DEL/2019 that since the Assessee had merged with Idea Cellular, the decision of the Delhi High Court should be applied. However, we find no merit in this contention since the way the position stands today the resulting company is Vodafone Idea Ltd. having jurisdiction