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

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

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

x) As the assessments were set aside on the point of jurisdiction, there was no need to discuss merits as this could be examined during fresh assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. It was finally observed as under:- ―4. Since the assessment have been set aside on the point of jurisdiction, I do not want to discuss the addition made

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

x) As the assessments were set aside on the point of jurisdiction, there was no need to discuss merits as this could be examined during fresh assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. It was finally observed as under:- ―4. Since the assessment have been set aside on the point of jurisdiction, I do not want to discuss the addition made

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

TDS between ITR and 26AS; ITA No. 3161/Del/19 security deposit of Rs. 1,53,20,438/- shown by the assessee; company international system expenses of Rs. 8,89,844/- and telephone and internet expenses of Rs. 2,38,919/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief. The assessee is in further appeal against sustaining the addition

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

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

x". 16. Distinction between tax-free income and the "xx" income on which tax should be paid by the employer is well brought out in Simon's Income Tax, second edition, vol. 11, at page 710. This is what is stated therein: "Where remuneration is paid to an employee free of income tax or the employer pays his employee

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

x". 16. Distinction between tax-free income and the "xx" income on which tax should be paid by the employer is well brought out in Simon's Income Tax, second edition, vol. 11, at page 710. This is what is stated therein: "Where remuneration is paid to an employee free of income tax or the employer pays his employee

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

x". 16. Distinction between tax-free income and the "xx" income on which tax should be paid by the employer is well brought out in Simon's Income Tax, second edition, vol. 11, at page 710. This is what is stated therein: "Where remuneration is paid to an employee free of income tax or the employer pays his employee

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

TARA VATI,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. CIRCLE 3(1) GURGAON, GURGAON

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 (2016) 388 ITR 343 were relied upon

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

M/S. BAIN & COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

x) Bain USA will provide to Bain India 'Administrative Services' as described in Appendix 'A' to the agreement as may be necessary to meet the 3 direct needs of current business activities of Bain India in a manner directly benefitting interests of Bain India. (xi) For the performance of 'Support Services' and 'Administrative Services' Bain India shall pay to Bain

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

TDS as per section 194I of the Act. However, the deal could be materialized and were got cancelled by the buyer M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and part of the advances were repaid also. All these agreements and cancelled agreement were found and seized during the course of search and are available in the paper book filed by the assessee

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

TDS as per section 194I of the Act. However, the deal could be materialized and were got cancelled by the buyer M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and part of the advances were repaid also. All these agreements and cancelled agreement were found and seized during the course of search and are available in the paper book filed by the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 of this Article, items of income beneficially owned by a resident of a Contracting State, wherever arising, other than income paid out of trusts or the estates of deceased persons in the course of administration, which are not dealt with in the foregoing Articles of this Convention, shall be taxable only in that State. 2. The provisions of paragraph