DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

50,329/- on account of fees paid to JV company as reimbursement of expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of Rs.8,91,153/- made u/s 14A. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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 any other section. 22.10 We also observe as claimed by the Assessee and not refuted by the ld. DR that the Assessee company has also reimbursed the part salary expenses of the employees expatriate to Serco UK in previous as well as in subsequent years. For clarity and ready reference details are reproduced below

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

50 is not applicable. The AO/DRP has erred in not appreciating the transaction and has grossly erred in recharacterizing it. 16. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP has erred in not appreciating that the deeming provisions under Chapter IV are not applicable which allow AO to determine the Fair Market

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

50 is not applicable. The AO/DRP has erred in not appreciating the transaction and has grossly erred in recharacterizing it. 16. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP has erred in not appreciating that the deeming provisions under Chapter IV are not applicable which allow AO to determine the Fair Market

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

50 is not applicable. The AO/DRP has erred in not appreciating the transaction and has grossly erred in recharacterizing it. 16. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP has erred in not appreciating that the deeming provisions under Chapter IV are not applicable which allow AO to determine the Fair Market

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. THE INDIAN NEWS PAPER SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 194-1 of the Act. Subsequently, this order was quashed by the High Court of Bombay and the issue was left open for the appropriate competent authority to initiate TDS proceedings keeping in view the law of limitation. Later, the Income-tax Officer (TDS)- 50

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

50,000/- and interest u/s. 220 (2) for the TDS returns filed prior to 31.05.2015. 19. A perusal of the above chart shows that all these TDS statements were filed before 01.06.2015. Therefore, the question that has to be considered is as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of late fee u/s 234E for delay

HARI SHANKAR SINGHANIA ESTATE,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT SPL. RANGE - 18, NEW DELHI

In the result, for statistical purposes the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Hari Shankar Singhania Estate, Vs. Jcit, Patroit House, 3, Special Range-18 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 002 Pan Aaaah9163Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

50,00,000/- has not even been declared in the return filed by the assessee at hand, namely Hari Shankar Singhania Estate for AY 2014-15 in accordance with the provisions of section 168 of the Act. But TDS

ACIT, CC- 31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

50% of the same works out to Rs.57.83 crores.” 5. The AO, in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 143C(13) of the Act dated 26th February, 2016, made the above proposed addition. The assessee did not object to such order of the AO before the DRP, but, submitted that it will file appeal before

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

50% of the same works out to Rs.57.83 crores.” 5. The AO, in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 143C(13) of the Act dated 26th February, 2016, made the above proposed addition. The assessee did not object to such order of the AO before the DRP, but, submitted that it will file appeal before

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

50% of the same works out to Rs.57.83 crores.” 5. The AO, in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 143C(13) of the Act dated 26th February, 2016, made the above proposed addition. The assessee did not object to such order of the AO before the DRP, but, submitted that it will file appeal before

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

50% of the same works out to Rs.57.83 crores.” 5. The AO, in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 143C(13) of the Act dated 26th February, 2016, made the above proposed addition. The assessee did not object to such order of the AO before the DRP, but, submitted that it will file appeal before

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS on payments made to residents as specified in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the disallowance shall be restricted to 30% of the amount of expenditure claimed. Further, existing provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act provides that certain payments such as interest, commission, brokerage, rent, royalty fee for technical services and contract payment made

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. MODESTY GARMENTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Acit Vs. M/S Modesty Garments, Circle-28(1), B-304, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aaafm1598F (Appellant) (Respondent)

50,000/- from sale of land/building. The Ld. AO required the assessee to show cause why the said profit be not considered as credits under section 68 as no detail has been submitted. In reply the assessee stated that TDS

SHIV SHAKTI BUILDERS,MEERUT vs. ITO, (TDS), MEERUT

In the result, ITA No. 3920/Del/2018 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

TDS on the total sale consideration of the land as per the provisions of section 194IA of the Act, as the total sale consideration would have exceeded Rs. 50

SHIV SHAKTI BUILDERS,MEERUT vs. ITO, (TDS), MEERUT

In the result, ITA No. 3920/Del/2018 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

TDS on the total sale consideration of the land as per the provisions of section 194IA of the Act, as the total sale consideration would have exceeded Rs. 50

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ACKRUTI SAFEGAURD SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhuand, Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. Ackruti Safeguard Systems Circle – 1(2), Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi – 110 002 D-89/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan No. Aacca 4087 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-I, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under : Dcit Vs. Ackruti Safeguard Systems Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing/ Trading / Exporting /Distributing Of All Kinds Of High Security Number Plates & Other Connecting Activities. Ao Has Noted That The Business Of The Assessee Had Not Commenced Till The End Of The Year Under Consideration. Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2012-13 On 29.09.2012 Showing Loss Of Rs.69,05,408/-. Subsequently, It Revised The Return Of Income On 29.03.2014 Declaring Loss Of Rs.1,88,21,050/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter, Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Vide Order Dated 30.03.2015 & The Total Loss Was Determined At Rs.35,61,712/-.

TDS has not been deposited with the appropriate authorities within the due date, the claim of the assessee was disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He accordingly made addition of Rs.1,19,15,642/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). CIT(A) after relying

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 273B of the Act, no penalty can be levied. d) Without Prejudice, if the mechanism to deduct TDS fails in absence of ‘payment’ or ‘credit’, there is a ‘reasonable cause’ for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194H of the Act. 3. The Appellant prays that the penalty amounting to 10,73,990/- levied u/s 271C