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

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.

56(2)(vii) was not in statute. It followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF). The more relevant case law will be Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Mahendar pal Narang vs CBDT, New Delhi which has distinguished the above judgment. 1. 1. Haryana Urban development

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 :

TDS 2, Rajkot Vs. Muktanadgiri Maheshgiri vs. District Development 23. Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Hisar Vs. Hari Singh Saini in ITA No.1539/Del/2020 24. In the case of Mahender pal Narang Vs. CBDT New Delhi [ 2020] 120 taxmann.com 400 ( P & H) 25. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. vs. The Chief Engineer

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)

TDS or TCS or advance tax needs to be reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the IT A; v. any amount representing provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities; ITA No 5982 Del 2018 AY 2014 15 Strton Exim P Ltd Alongwith stay 665 Del 2018 36 vi. any amount representing contingent liabilities other

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

vii) Upon receipt of notice under Section 142(1), the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the AO, Delhi. The respondent assessee denied receipt of notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by AO, Delhi for the three assessment years. The respondent had correctly objected to the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, Delhi within the statutory time

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

vii) Upon receipt of notice under Section 142(1), the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the AO, Delhi. The respondent assessee denied receipt of notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by AO, Delhi for the three assessment years. The respondent had correctly objected to the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, Delhi within the statutory time

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. M/S LUFTHANSA CARGO INDIA P .

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

TDS. With reference to payments made to residents of UK and USA, the CIT (A) held that they were not in the nature of „fees for technical or included services‟ under Article 12 of the DTAA read with the Memorandum of Understanding with USA which equally applied to the UK Treaty. Payments made to residents of USA and UK were

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. M/S LUFTHANSA CARGO INDIA P .

TDS. With reference to payments made to residents of UK and USA, the CIT (A) held that they were not in the nature of „fees for technical or included services‟ under Article 12 of the DTAA read with the Memorandum of Understanding with USA which equally applied to the UK Treaty. Payments made to residents of USA and UK were

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

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS has been fully deducted on such payments. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2011. Case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. In compliance, the assessee submitted reply by way of written submissions as required by the Assessing Officer. The assessee company is a non-resident

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

vii), (viia)(I) and (viia)(II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

vii), (viia)(I) and (viia)(II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

vii), (viia)(I) and (viia)(II). Though the provision underwent several modifications as to the definition of "technician" as well as the quantum and period for which the exemption was available, the basic requirement that the technician must have been employed in a business carried on in India existed right from the beginning. Therefore, the contention of the revenue about

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

56(2)(vii), 57(iv) and section 145A of the Act were not applicable as the assessee has received interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 22. It was specifically submitted that the judgment of P&H High Court in case of Mehendra Pal Narang V. CBDT (2020) 120 Taxman.com 400 (P&H) is dated 19.02.2020 while

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

56(2)(vii), 57(iv) and section 145A of the Act were not applicable as the assessee has received interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 22. It was specifically submitted that the judgment of P&H High Court in case of Mehendra Pal Narang V. CBDT (2020) 120 Taxman.com 400 (P&H) is dated 19.02.2020 while

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

56(2)(vii), 57(iv) and section 145A of the Act were not applicable as the assessee has received interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 22. It was specifically submitted that the judgment of P&H High Court in case of Mehendra Pal Narang V. CBDT (2020) 120 Taxman.com 400 (P&H) is dated 19.02.2020 while

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

TDS survey under section 133A(2A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee has not deducted tax from payments remitted abroad under various heads i.e., Commission on Student Recruitment, Ph.D Thesis Evaluation, Participation Fee for Education Tour, Advertisement/Marketing Promotional Activities, fee towards outsourced admission process, Educational Tours, and Education Fair Charges etc. Rejecting

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

TDS survey under section 133A(2A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee has not deducted tax from payments remitted abroad under various heads i.e., Commission on Student Recruitment, Ph.D Thesis Evaluation, Participation Fee for Education Tour, Advertisement/Marketing Promotional Activities, fee towards outsourced admission process, Educational Tours, and Education Fair Charges etc. Rejecting