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

58,365 to Vibzap Soft Solutions with no TDS deducted, and (b) Rs. 11,71,623 (proportionate disallowance on Rs. 62,04,815 to Vibzap and Arjun Punji with short TDS deduction). The AO added both back under section

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section 2(24)(x) rws 36(1)(va) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the appellant assessee filed appeal Before the Ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. 21. The first revolves around the issue that whether

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section 2(24)(x) rws 36(1)(va) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the appellant assessee filed appeal Before the Ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. 21. The first revolves around the issue that whether

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section 2(24)(x) rws 36(1)(va) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the appellant assessee filed appeal Before the Ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. 21. The first revolves around the issue that whether

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section 2(24)(x) rws 36(1)(va) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the appellant assessee filed appeal Before the Ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. 21. The first revolves around the issue that whether

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS Officer vide order dated March 30, 2012 rejected all the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to saddle the demand of Rs. 8,39,81,641 under section 201(1) of the Act. Rs. 6,58

KGL NETWORK (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

58 (Kol.) held as under : “Where assessee-exporter made payments to Indian agents of foreign airlines on account of airfreight, assessee did not have any TDS obligations either under section

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/-; disallowance of notional loss of Rs.18,64,61,000/- booked under the head foreign exchange loss; disallowance of Rs. 59,58,893/- for non-deduction of TDS

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/-; disallowance of notional loss of Rs.18,64,61,000/- booked under the head foreign exchange loss; disallowance of Rs. 59,58,893/- for non-deduction of TDS

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/-; disallowance of notional loss of Rs.18,64,61,000/- booked under the head foreign exchange loss; disallowance of Rs. 59,58,893/- for non-deduction of TDS

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act including therein disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/-; disallowance of notional loss of Rs.18,64,61,000/- booked under the head foreign exchange loss; disallowance of Rs. 59,58,893/- for non-deduction of TDS

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

58,960 on account of provision for transit breakage is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee by directing the AO to allow the actual transit breakage for the impugned assessment year in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., reported

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

58,960 on account of provision for transit breakage is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee by directing the AO to allow the actual transit breakage for the impugned assessment year in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., reported

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

58,960 on account of provision for transit breakage is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee by directing the AO to allow the actual transit breakage for the impugned assessment year in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., reported

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

58,960 on account of provision for transit breakage is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee by directing the AO to allow the actual transit breakage for the impugned assessment year in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., reported

NOKIA INDIA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7244/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 807, New Delhi House, Special Range-6, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn9141L Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surenderpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

Section 40(a)(ia) such expenditure would have been allowed as deduction in the hands of assessee only if they have deducted TDS on the said payments. Since there was a failure on part of NISPL to deduct TDS disallowance of Rs. 58

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

58,963/- by invoking the provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act. The appellant contends that the payment of bank guarantee charges to scheduled bank is not covered under any TDS

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 provisions in the case of residents and curb bogus payments. Moreover, though section 194J was inserted with effect from July 1, 1995, till the assessment year in question that is the assessment year 2005-06 both the Revenue and the assessee proceeded on the footing that section 194'J was not applicable to the Page 5 of 59 payment