DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

4. 4.1. The ld. AO disallowed the commission expense of Rs.41,55,067l- on the ground that assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving that the commission was paid to genuine person. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). xxx 8. We have heard the rival submission in the light

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

4,41,315 Nature of contractual payment TDS Contractual deducted under section 194C payment M/s Vbizap Soft 1,58,365 TDS

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

4,41,315 Nature of contractual payment TDS Contractual deducted under section 194C payment M/s Vbizap Soft 1,58,365 TDS

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

4,41,315 Nature of contractual payment TDS Contractual deducted under section 194C payment M/s Vbizap Soft 1,58,365 TDS

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

58,821 International Bridge both railway span Ltd. and adjacent approaches span including reinforced earth wall/retaining wall 8. Soanbarsa NHAI Augmenting the existing 68,95,11,290 (Through road from km 2.8 to km 89 Project on Muzaffarpur- Sonbarsa Company Section of National North Bihar Highway No.-77 in the State Highway Ltd. of Bihar by Two-Laning on design

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

58,821 International Road over Bridge Ltd. both railway span and adjacent approaches span including reinforced earth wall/retaining wall 8. Soanbarsa NHAI Augmenting the 68,95,11,290 (Through existing road from Project km 2.8 to km 89 Company on Muzaffarpur- North Bihar Sonbarsa Section Highway Ltd. of National Highway No.-77 in the State of Bihar by Two-Laning

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS related issues / defaults. 8. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating / considering the submission made by the appellant that since the entire amount of Rs. 7,38,43,516/- was paid by the appellant to M/s Intelsat Corporation and nothing was payable as on 31st March 2008 hence in view of the decision

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS related issues / defaults. 8. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating / considering the submission made by the appellant that since the entire amount of Rs. 7,38,43,516/- was paid by the appellant to M/s Intelsat Corporation and nothing was payable as on 31st March 2008 hence in view of the decision

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 65B(4) of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the\nadmissibility of evidence by way of electronic record as\nsection 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a\nmandatory. In view of the same, it was submitted that the\npen drive (an electronic record), being relied upon by the\ndepartment, is not admissible