HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS certificates\nissued for FY 16-17 on sample basis, are enclosed as Enclosure-IV.\nThus, our submission is that, the entire collection expenditure, including provision\nmade for the purpose of business and services rendered by collection vendors\nduring the year 2016-17. is allowable as business expenditure to the assessee.\nTherefore, the question disallowance or making any addition

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. M.P. BUILDING & OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKER WELFARE BOARD 3. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED 195003 19500 4. WORLD VISION INDIA 815130 16302 5. ATC TOWER COMPANY OF INDIA PVT. LTD. 1039075 20782 6. APNE AAP WOMEN WORLD WIDE (TRUST) 46765 4677 7. EFICOR 14000 1400 8. HOPE FOUNDATION 96098 1922 9. NUT INITIATIVE FOR LEARNING 10697 1071 10. NIIT YUVAJYOTI LIMITED

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 43,63,060 - 43,63,060 formula and failed to took factor of Rs. 10, and if said factor would have been taken, 8,53,059 8,75,737 8,53,059 the value of assessee’s share would have Other been Rs. 70 (even going by the method so Current applied by learned AO) Liabilities

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 43,63,060 - 43,63,060 formula and failed to took factor of Rs. 10, and if said factor would have been taken, 8,53,059 8,75,737 8,53,059 the value of assessee’s share would have Other been Rs. 70 (even going by the method so Current applied by learned AO) Liabilities

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

8. Section 34 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are under:- Section 34 of the 1894 Act reads as under: - "34. Payment of interest When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

8. There still remain the words "including any sum paid by the assessee in respect of any obligation which but for such payment would have been payable by such employee" in Section 40(a)(v) and similar words found in Section 40A(5)(a) (ii) as well, i.e., in Sub-clause (iv) of the definition of "perquisite " in Clause

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

8. There still remain the words "including any sum paid by the assessee in respect of any obligation which but for such payment would have been payable by such employee" in Section 40(a)(v) and similar words found in Section 40A(5)(a) (ii) as well, i.e., in Sub-clause (iv) of the definition of "perquisite " in Clause

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

8. There still remain the words "including any sum paid by the assessee in respect of any obligation which but for such payment would have been payable by such employee" in Section 40(a)(v) and similar words found in Section 40A(5)(a) (ii) as well, i.e., in Sub-clause (iv) of the definition of "perquisite " in Clause

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS provisions on nature of payments and as such disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) is illegal, arbitrary and without any ground or basis. (iii) That in any case, impugned disallowance is without appreciating proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That finding of conclusion of CIT(A) in respect of value of work in progress is illegal

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

TDS-1, Surat [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Gujrat). 8. Per Contra, the Learned DR relying upon the orders passed by the both authorities below, submitted that the Legislature introduced the provisions of section 56(2

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

TDS is required to be made on the service tax component under Section 194J of the Act.” 16. In view of this ground No.6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed holding that the service tax does not form part of gross receipts for the purpose of taxing income of the assessee u/s 44BB

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), for carrying out work in pursuance of the contract, and deducted 2% from such payment, as tax deducted at source („TDS‟). Quantum proceedings 8

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:

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the deletion of addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 9. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had received loan from Ramsan Communications Ltd. and the receipt of loan was considered as deemed dividend

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

TDS. The case of the assessee was referred by the ld AO to ld TPO for benchmarking the international transaction of the assessee. The ld TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 30.07.2021 proposing an arm‟s length price (ALP) of Rs. 5,25,89,297/- in respect of provision of marketing support services by the assessee

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid any future hassles for both resident as well as non resident. In our view, Sections 195(2) and 195(3) are safeguards. The said provisions are of practical importance. This reasoning of ours is based on the decision

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

2 of 2001. 4. Without prejudice to any of the above, that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not holding that section 44DA could not have applied in respect of payments received by a non-resident assessee from another non- resident. 5. Without prejudice to any of the above, that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not holding

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

8 to 8.3 are allowed in favour of the assessee. 26. As regards to Ground No. 9 to 9.3 relating to disallowance of alleged excessive purchases from related parties as per AS-18 amounting to Rs. 38.36 crores, it can be seen that in the course of business of manufacturing two- wheelers, the assessee, inter alia, procures certain critical components