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

section share) 56(2))(viib) read with 302,94,20,917/- 272,03,82,220 286,85,63,149 Explanation a(ii) and applied valuation as Total Assets per Rule 11UA. (A) However , while applying Rule 11UA the learned AO failed to apply the complete TDS

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 56(2

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 :

56 of the Income Tax Act. Section 28 of the 1894 Act reads as under: - "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award

STRYTON EXIM INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

56(2)(viib), The New Notification is made applicable from the date of publication of the Rule in official Gazette. The Notification was also gazette on 29 November 2012. The valuation rule 11 UA of income tax rule is described as under:- ITA No 5982 Del 2018 AY 2014 15 Strton Exim P Ltd Alongwith stay

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

TDS, 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 49 of 61 self assessment and advance tax challans and dividend warrants etc. had not been attached. (8) There was exchange of correspondence between Assessing Officer at Delhi and ITO, Dimapur. ITO, Dimapur conceded and accepted that for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, the Assessing Officer

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

TDS, 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 49 of 61 self assessment and advance tax challans and dividend warrants etc. had not been attached. (8) There was exchange of correspondence between Assessing Officer at Delhi and ITO, Dimapur. ITO, Dimapur conceded and accepted that for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, the Assessing Officer

BIGFOOT RETAIL SOLUTION PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

section 56(2)(viib); addition of Rs. 6,82,055/- due to difference in TDS between ITR and 26AS; ITA No. 3161/Del/19

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANIPAT vs. DINESH KAUSHIK, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Dinesh Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Panipat Vpo Baljattan, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Awjpk9483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

56(2)(viii) and 57(iv), the nature of interest under section 28 of the 1894 Act will remain that of compensation and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai vs. ITO TDS

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

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

TDS and interest on FBT claimed by the assessee as expenditure. 2.12. The A.O. also made addition of Rs.113,31,36,001/- on account of allotment of shares of NCDEX by invoking provisions of section 56(2

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

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

TDS and interest on FBT claimed by the assessee as expenditure. 2.12. The A.O. also made addition of Rs.113,31,36,001/- on account of allotment of shares of NCDEX by invoking provisions of section 56(2

RAJ SINGH ,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

56(2)(viii) and 57(iv), the nature of interest under section 28 of the 1894 Act will remain that of compensation and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai vs. ITO TDS

JAGJIT SINGH KATARIA,SONEPAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ROHTAK

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

2. The brief facts of the case are that the case was selected for complete scrutiny for the purposes of verifying the claim of ‘refund of tax’ claimed by the Assessee. An assessment order dated 15/09/2021 came to be passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”)read with Section 144B

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

TDS amounts deposited with the income tax authorities, by the assessee‘s employers. These excess amount, according to the Assessing Officer, were not exempt under Section 10(5B) but were taxable income of the assessee, as ―disguised perquisites‖. The assessees contended that refund issued in their name could not be treated as a perquisite, as neither any benefit accrued

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

TDS amounts deposited with the income tax authorities, by the assessee‘s employers. These excess amount, according to the Assessing Officer, were not exempt under Section 10(5B) but were taxable income of the assessee, as ―disguised perquisites‖. The assessees contended that refund issued in their name could not be treated as a perquisite, as neither any benefit accrued

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

TDS amounts deposited with the income tax authorities, by the assessee‘s employers. These excess amount, according to the Assessing Officer, were not exempt under Section 10(5B) but were taxable income of the assessee, as ―disguised perquisites‖. The assessees contended that refund issued in their name could not be treated as a perquisite, as neither any benefit accrued

SUBHASH CHAND DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

TDS was deducted to the tune of Rs. 3591040/-. The Income was claimed Exempt hence Difference in Total Income and 26AS-194A. Earlier while filing the Original Return, the Interest received on Enhanced Compensation was offered for taxation under section 56 (2

SATISH KUMAR DHINGRA ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

TDS was deducted to the tune of Rs. 3591040/-. The Income was claimed Exempt hence Difference in Total Income and 26AS-194A. Earlier while filing the Original Return, the Interest received on Enhanced Compensation was offered for taxation under section 56 (2

ASHOK KUMAR DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

TDS was deducted to the tune of Rs. 3591040/-. The Income was claimed Exempt hence Difference in Total Income and 26AS-194A. Earlier while filing the Original Return, the Interest received on Enhanced Compensation was offered for taxation under section 56 (2