YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

b) Establishments and concerns with at least five employees had to register with the pension fund authorities and both the employer and the employee were required to contribute to the pension insurance scheme; (c) The monthly contribution of both the employer and the employees were to be deposited with the National Bank of Japan; (d) The benefit from the scheme

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

b) Establishments and concerns with at least five employees had to register with the pension fund authorities and both the employer and the employee were required to contribute to the pension insurance scheme; (c) The monthly contribution of both the employer and the employees were to be deposited with the National Bank of Japan; (d) The benefit from the scheme

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 :

5, Hisar in ITA No.1418/Del/2022 16. Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Manjeet Singh Vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Karnal in ITA No.1391/Del/2017 17. Decision of P & H High Court in the case of HSIDC Ltd. Vs. Savitri and Another in CR No.2509 of 2012 dated 29.11.2011. 18. HSIDC Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors. SLP (C) No. 019887/2014

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

B) and any orders passed by the Respondent No. 5 under given assessment jurisdiction and as illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio and/or why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari/Prohibition and/or any other appropriate Writ shall not be issued quashing the aforesaid impugned Orders dated 15.03.1990 and 20.09.1990 and any orders passed by the Respondent No. 5 under given

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

B) and any orders passed by the Respondent No. 5 under given assessment jurisdiction and as illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio and/or why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari/Prohibition and/or any other appropriate Writ shall not be issued quashing the aforesaid impugned Orders dated 15.03.1990 and 20.09.1990 and any orders passed by the Respondent No. 5 under given

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

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.

5. (i) The reply of the assessee is not convincing at all. As per the section 56(2)(Viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation, shall be assessed under the head "Income from other sources" in the year in which it is received. Further, as per section

ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI vs. J. KISHORE EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

TDS being deducted can be allowed to the agents who have business connection in India and are subject to tax deduction at source u/s 195 of the Act. ? 3. Whether the commission payment of Rs.3,80,52,350/- can be allowed even when the assessee failed to take recourse u/s 195(2) of the Act by making application

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. A perusal of the records of the case it is seen that the exact nature of these payments vis a vis services rendered by the assessee has not been examined in the assessment proceedings for A.Y.2014-15. Why commercial establishments are making such payments and deducting TDS on such payment, impliedly claiming the expenditure in computation of their taxable income

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

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

b) of the Act. As observed earlier section 44DA was inserted in proviso to section 44BB (1) by the Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 1.4.2011 and simultaneously inserted second proviso to section 44DA applicable from assessment 5 & C.O. No. 59/Del/2013 year 2011-12 according to which provisions of section 44BB (1) will not be applicable in respect of income

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

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

5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. He has referred to PB-51 which is reply filed before A.O. supported by documentary evidences and payment of salary. PB-73 onwards is ledger account of the salary, on which, TDS has ben deducted. PB-77 is another reply

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

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

5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. He has referred to PB-51 which is reply filed before A.O. supported by documentary evidences and payment of salary. PB-73 onwards is ledger account of the salary, on which, TDS has ben deducted. PB-77 is another reply

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

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

5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. He has referred to PB-51 which is reply filed before A.O. supported by documentary evidences and payment of salary. PB-73 onwards is ledger account of the salary, on which, TDS has ben deducted. PB-77 is another reply

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

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

5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. He has referred to PB-51 which is reply filed before A.O. supported by documentary evidences and payment of salary. PB-73 onwards is ledger account of the salary, on which, TDS has ben deducted. PB-77 is another reply

HINDUSTAN EPC COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

b) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Act. By an independent evaluation of the matter in the light of the provisions of section 5(2) read with section 9 of the Act, we have held above that the foreign commission is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident. Be that

ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(2), NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN EPC COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

b) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Act. By an independent evaluation of the matter in the light of the provisions of section 5(2) read with section 9 of the Act, we have held above that the foreign commission is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident. Be that