DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,SHAMLI vs. ITO (TDS), MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

TDS) DM Compound, Shamli Muzaffarnagar PAN No.MRTDO2628D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr DR Date of hearing 11.11.2021 Date of pronouncement 18.11.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: These appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 28/03/2018 passed by the Learned CIT(Appeals)- Muzaffarnagar [in short the Learned CIT(A)] for Assessment

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,SHAMLI vs. ITO (TDS), MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

TDS) DM Compound, Shamli Muzaffarnagar PAN No.MRTDO2628D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr DR Date of hearing 11.11.2021 Date of pronouncement 18.11.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: These appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 28/03/2018 passed by the Learned CIT(Appeals)- Muzaffarnagar [in short the Learned CIT(A)] for Assessment

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,BIJNOR vs. ITO (TDS), MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7985/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम The District Magistrate Collectorate, Ito (Tds), Vs. Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Moradabad. Pan No. Lkndo6243G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the instant assessee is not a “person” for the purpose of section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAMESH KUMAR PABBI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit Vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Circle – 62(1), A-41, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aanpp 5995 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr.D.R. Revenue By Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

TDS on payment of Rs.3,93,035/- towards testing charges payable to RITES Ltd as mandated u/s 194J of the I.T. Act, 1961. (III) The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 4. First ground is with respect to the deleting of addition of deemed dividend made

NEC HCL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result we confirm the finding the of the CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance u/s 40a (i) of The Income tax Act of Rs

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

6A)(e) and section 12(1B) were introduced in the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 15 of 1955, which came into force on April 1, 1955. The Government, however, realised that the operation of section 12(1B) would lead to extreme hardship because it would have covered the aggregate of all outstanding loans of past years and would

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

TDS amounting to Rs.73,231/- was claimed as expenditure. Thus, the AO completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.22,77,34,180/-. 7. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) deleted all the additions made by the AO. So far as the addition of Rs.8,74,367/- made by the AO on account of Client Code Modification

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, Income Tax, Circle-1(1), N-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aagpg8032N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Iv, New Delhi, Dated 27.02.2013, Passed For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. Whether The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 53,29,843/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Ignoring The Fact That The Advances Had Not Been Made In The Ordinary Course Of Business Expediency & The Assessee Had Been Regularly Repaying The Amount Received From The Company. Ii. The Appellant Craves Leave For Reserving The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary From The Company, Namely, M/S A.K.G. Industries

TDS payable of Rs. 29,51,460/-. Thus, there are mutual transactions between the said company and the assessee throughout the year. 5 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this account is in the nature of a current account, and moreover, the salary payable is also credited in this account and wherever there are payments in excess of the salary

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,BADAUN vs. ITO(TDS), MORADABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

6A) of the Act is with regard to A.Y. 2009-10 and order was passed on 29.3.2016. In the Act there is no specific period, however, as every assessee is entitled to be sure of the assessment and its consequential effect, the principles of natural justice require assuming a reasonable period of limitation for passing order and the Coordinate Bench

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit the learned CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee from the records and allow the tax credit. However, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit the learned CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee from the records and allow the tax credit. However, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel

ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2011-12

6A)/206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of non deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, on the basis of explanation, documents/evidences furnished before, both the lower authorities have failed to understand the nature of transaction carried