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

70,834,394 7.08 Havana 25,583,848 2.56 Oaken Glow 11,908,925 1.19 Passport 16,076,088 1.61 Grand Total 2,525,636,959 252.56 The AMP expense in relation to brands having sales outside India is Rs.115.65 crores. 50% of the same works out to Rs.57.83 crores.” 5. The AO, in the order passed

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

70,834,394 7.08 Havana 25,583,848 2.56 Oaken Glow 11,908,925 1.19 Passport 16,076,088 1.61 Grand Total 2,525,636,959 252.56 The AMP expense in relation to brands having sales outside India is Rs.115.65 crores. 50% of the same works out to Rs.57.83 crores.” 5. The AO, in the order passed

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

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

70 ITA.No.3377 to 3383/Del./2018 M/s. Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. the agreement and the consideration that the respondent- assessee received in terms of the purchase contract or order, in addition to a pre-determined guarantee consideration. Again, an indication contra to the contention that the non-resident was providing management service to the respondent-assessee

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

70 ITA.No.3377 to 3383/Del./2018 M/s. Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. the agreement and the consideration that the respondent- assessee received in terms of the purchase contract or order, in addition to a pre-determined guarantee consideration. Again, an indication contra to the contention that the non-resident was providing management service to the respondent-assessee

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

70 ITA.No.3377 to 3383/Del./2018 M/s. Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. the agreement and the consideration that the respondent- assessee received in terms of the purchase contract or order, in addition to a pre-determined guarantee consideration. Again, an indication contra to the contention that the non-resident was providing management service to the respondent-assessee

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

70 ITA.No.3377 to 3383/Del./2018 M/s. Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. the agreement and the consideration that the respondent- assessee received in terms of the purchase contract or order, in addition to a pre-determined guarantee consideration. Again, an indication contra to the contention that the non-resident was providing management service to the respondent-assessee

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

70 ITA.No.3377 to 3383/Del./2018 M/s. Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. the agreement and the consideration that the respondent- assessee received in terms of the purchase contract or order, in addition to a pre-determined guarantee consideration. Again, an indication contra to the contention that the non-resident was providing management service to the respondent-assessee

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

70 ITA.No.3377 to 3383/Del./2018 M/s. Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. the agreement and the consideration that the respondent- assessee received in terms of the purchase contract or order, in addition to a pre-determined guarantee consideration. Again, an indication contra to the contention that the non-resident was providing management service to the respondent-assessee

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

70 ITA.No.3377 to 3383/Del./2018 M/s. Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. the agreement and the consideration that the respondent- assessee received in terms of the purchase contract or order, in addition to a pre-determined guarantee consideration. Again, an indication contra to the contention that the non-resident was providing management service to the respondent-assessee

UJJWAL SINGH ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CPC , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS of Rs.5,70,516/- while processing the return under Section 143(1) purportedly on the ground such TDS is not reflected

RH INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act because such provision is not 30 ITA.No.6724/Del./2018 M/s. R.H. International Ltd., New Delhi. attracted in this Section. Therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act is not application on such transaction. This addition is, therefore, liable to be deleted. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders

HCL COMNET LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmahcl Comnet Limited Vs. Dcit, 806, Sidharth, Circle-11(1), 96, Nehru Place, Room No. 416, New Delhi C.R.Building, Pan : Aach9667H New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section HCL Connect Ltd. 4 198 of the Act. The TDS credit of Rs. 2,48,71,145/- on deferred revenue will be allowed in the relevant assessment year in which underlying revenue has been offered to tax. Further, the assessee has claimed additional TDS of Rs. 12,70

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

TDS on outsourcing cost paid by Japan BO to HCL Japan Ltd. of Rs 166637966/- b) rejection of claim of set off of loss from STPI unit against other business profits of Rs. 5,490,557/- 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act dated December 9, 2011, the appellant has preferred

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

70,432/- on the following amounts:- a) Professional support cost to cost reimbursement - Rs.5,47,89,345/- b) Client related expenses - Rs.2,04,85,020 c) Computer Maintenance Expenses - Rs.36,96,067/- 9. So far as non-deduction of tax on professional support cost is concerned, the AO held that support services received by the assessee are technical in nature

UNIVERSAL ENERGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

70,248/-. Interest on TDS is not an allowable expenditure. In this case the assessee itself agreed for the assessment before the AO and this fact is not disputed by the ld. AR in the appellate proceeding. It is undisputed law that income tax inputs interest, penalty also and the same is not allowable as per provisions of Section

STERNAL BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 24(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

TDS, the AO was correct in making disallowance as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. ” 6. Thus it is the case of assessee that the AO has treated the EDC payment as interest payment under Section 194A and it is not the case of the AO that the payment is covered in view of Section

ALEXIS GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 194C to persons who have not filed return of income”. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has made payments of Rs.4,67,39,654/- towards contract expenses and deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act on the amount of Rs.3,26,70