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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BLUE JAY FINLEASE PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, Circle-4(2), 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi Delhi-110001 Pan: Aaacb5215H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Ca Department By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

TDS on the interest income of INR 6,971 belonging to Appellant.” From the ledger account of Vaibhav Jain uploaded by the appellant, it is seen that Rs.1 lakh was paid through IDFC escrow account on 8.12.2017. Total interest received was Rs.6971. Additional interest income of Rs.27,885 was not actually the income of the Appellant. Merely because a payment

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

56(2)(viib) are not applicable and the share premium should not be added back to the income of the assessee company. Thus, the burden shifts on the Department to show that even if share applicants did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee

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)(viia). While dong so, the A.O. noted that NCDEX was promoted by various Financial Institutions. Over a period of time the 19 ITA.No

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)(viia). While dong so, the A.O. noted that NCDEX was promoted by various Financial Institutions. Over a period of time the 19 ITA.No

APL LOGISTICS VASCOR AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Apl Logistics Vascor Automotive Vs Ao, Private Limited, Cpc, 4Th Floor, Sewa Tower, Plot No.19, Bengaluru. Anath Road, Udyog Vihar Iv, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015. Pan: Aakca3524C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2018-19/10026768 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 08.10.2020 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Cpc Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

section 56(2) (viib). 2.1 Against such doubts raised by the AO, the assessee submitted a point- wise reply as under:- i) With respect to non-deduction of TDS

ABHINAV INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 56(2)(viib) I.T.A No.7822/Del/2019 2 and; (iv) Interest on late deposit of TDS wrongly claimed at Rs.6,578/- 2.1 The CIT(A) concluded

SNG METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(4), FARIDABAD

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act creates a deeming fiction and while giving effect to such legal fictions all facts and circumstances incidental thereto and inevitable corollaries thereof have to be assumed 5. That legal fictions are created only for a definite purpose and they are limited to the purpose for which they are created and should

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI, C.R. BUILDING vs. ADDVERB TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the order of CIT(A) is upheld, and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4. Ms. Neha Chaudhary, representing the department vehemently defending the assessment order prayed for reversing findings of the CIT(A). She submitted that the assessee failed to show valid reasons for claiming excessive interest on repayment of loans. In so far as on the issue relating to valuation of shares she reiterated findings

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI vs. CAPARO POWER LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

TDS has not been deducted u/s 194IA cannot be allowed. Hence, Rs.3,45,00,000/- is added back to the income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act.” 5. Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HOLISOL LOGISTICS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

56(2)(viib) of the Act, on the basis of the valuation report certified by the Ld. Chartered Accountant, which is not only based upon scientific valuation and financial position for the next seven years in the normal market/business scenariobut also prepared in accordance with the prescribed Rules as applicable thereto. The Assessing Officer rejected the method adopted

M/S ABHINAV INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground number three of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiabhinav International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit C-24, Greater Kailash Enclave-1 Circle 1(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadca8631P (Appellant) (Respondent)

56(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 34,38,000/- on account of valuation of premium received on issue 2 of shares” 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of investment in shares. Return of income was filed on 8/9/2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,17,70,956/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) was made

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS and refund claimed [P.B. Page No. 394 to 395 and 397]. (iii) The Ld. PCIT Delhi-4 did not quantify or made any finding that how the refund claimed by appellant-company was erroneous and prejudice to the interest of revenue and what amount of refund claimed by appellant-company was incorrect or unlawful. (iv) The Ld. PCIT Delhi

SIMBHAOLI POWER PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT GHAZIABAD, NEW DELHI

TDS\n(ii) Low net profit or loss shown from large gross receipt\n(iii) Large share premium received during the year.\n(iv) Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c\n(v) Depreciation claimed at higher rates/Higher additional depreciation claimed\n(vi) Large business loss set off against other heads of income.\n(vii) Mismatch in sales

DELHI CARGO SERVICE CENTER,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

56(2)(viib) of the Act being share premium received by the assessee from domestic entities; disallowance of Rs. 12,83,016/- under section 37(1) of the Act being payment to PWC on behalf of IDFC Alternative Ltd. and disallowance of Rs. 1,28,605/- under section 43B being late payment towards statutory dues. 2 4. Aggrieved, the assessee

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

56. The ld AO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the above payment are chargeable to tax in India in terms of provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as they fall into the definition of ‗fees for technical services‘. With respect to the applicability of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, also he held that