EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS on this payment. Thus, on this score also, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel had also brought to our notice a CBDT Circular No. 56 of 2012 wherein it has been clarified that 'guarantee fee'paid to a nationalized bank will not be subject to withholding tax. Thus in view

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI vs. EXPENDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS on this payment. Thus, on this score also, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel had also brought to our notice a CBDT Circular No. 56 of 2012 wherein it has been clarified that 'guarantee fee'paid to a nationalized bank will not be subject to withholding tax. Thus in view

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXPENDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS on this payment. Thus, on this score also, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel had also brought to our notice a CBDT Circular No. 56 of 2012 wherein it has been clarified that 'guarantee fee'paid to a nationalized bank will not be subject to withholding tax. Thus in view

M/S EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS on this payment. Thus, on this score also, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel had also brought to our notice a CBDT Circular No. 56 of 2012 wherein it has been clarified that 'guarantee fee'paid to a nationalized bank will not be subject to withholding tax. Thus in view

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS on this payment. Thus, on this score also, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel had also brought to our notice a CBDT Circular No. 56 of 2012 wherein it has been clarified that 'guarantee fee'paid to a nationalized bank will not be subject to withholding tax. Thus in view

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS on this payment. Thus, on this score also, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel had also brought to our notice a CBDT Circular No. 56 of 2012 wherein it has been clarified that 'guarantee fee'paid to a nationalized bank will not be subject to withholding tax. Thus in view

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI vs. EXPENDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS on this payment. Thus, on this score also, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel had also brought to our notice a CBDT Circular No. 56 of 2012 wherein it has been clarified that 'guarantee fee'paid to a nationalized bank will not be subject to withholding tax. Thus in view

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the above, the decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra) would support the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. In view of the totality of above facts, we are unable to uphold the view of the TPO that

The Motor & General Finance Ltd. etc. etc. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, New Delhi

TDS and advance tax and, therefore, refund was claimed. An intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act had been passed and refund, along with interest, under Section 254A of the Act had been issued to the assessee. It was paid within the time prescribed under the Act. Subsequently, the assessment had been completed under Section

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI vs. VLCC HEALTH CARE LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekaddl.Cit, Special Range 9, Vs. Vlcc Health Care Ltd., New Delhi. M – 14, Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi - 110 048. (Pan : Aaacc4808P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Ms. Rinky Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Order : 09.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 08.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2009 For The Ay 2009-10 Declaring An Income Of Rs.14,34,56,042. The Case Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 2 143(2) & 142 (1) Along With Questionnaire Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Filed The Relevant Information As Called For. 3. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Slimming & Beauty Services. The Assessee Has Not Disclosed Any Other Source Of Income During The Year. During Assessment Proceedings, Ao Observed That The Assessee Is Carrying Substantial Credit Balances As Current Liabilities Under The Head ‘Advance From Customers’. The Assessee Was Asked To Explain Along With Supporting Documents. Assessee Vide Its Letter Dated 22.11.2011 Submitted As Under :-

section 29 of the Act. Mere receipts are not taxable as profits. A Note on UEP (Unexecuted Packages) is enclosed. Receipt is different than income and the income is different than 1.2 profits. In mercantile method of accounting, money receipt by itself is not taxable. It is also not material when the right to receive the payment accrued. However, what

LEGEND SURFACE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanlegend Surface Developers Private Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 75 (2), 127-A, Central Avenue, New Delhi. Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Aabcl3143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am:

section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, for 2 non-deposition of taxes deducted u/s 195 amounting to INR 1,27,06,595/- along with applicable interest in respect of amounts paid to M/s RBI Marketing (Netherlands) B.V. and Fowls Ltd. towards license fees. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on law as well as on facts while

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801/- in respect of loan of USD 9,00,000 extended to its AEs-Aricent Japan Ltd & Aricent Technologies (Beijing) Ltd. The interest on the said loans advanced was charged LIBOR + 1.5%. The case of the assessee was that the rate of interest which was charged by it from its AE was comparable to the rate of interest

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801/- in respect of loan of USD 9,00,000 extended to its AEs-Aricent Japan Ltd & Aricent Technologies (Beijing) Ltd. The interest on the said loans advanced was charged LIBOR + 1.5%. The case of the assessee was that the rate of interest which was charged by it from its AE was comparable to the rate of interest

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801/- in respect of loan of USD 9,00,000 extended to its AEs-Aricent Japan Ltd & Aricent Technologies (Beijing) Ltd. The interest on the said loans advanced was charged LIBOR + 1.5%. The case of the assessee was that the rate of interest which was charged by it from its AE was comparable to the rate of interest

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801/- in respect of loan of USD 9,00,000 extended to its AEs-Aricent Japan Ltd & Aricent Technologies (Beijing) Ltd. The interest on the said loans advanced was charged LIBOR + 1.5%. The case of the assessee was that the rate of interest which was charged by it from its AE was comparable to the rate of interest

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801/- in respect of loan of USD 9,00,000 extended to its AEs-Aricent Japan Ltd & Aricent Technologies (Beijing) Ltd. The interest on the said loans advanced was charged LIBOR + 1.5%. The case of the assessee was that the rate of interest which was charged by it from its AE was comparable to the rate of interest

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801/- in respect of loan of USD 9,00,000 extended to its AEs-Aricent Japan Ltd & Aricent Technologies (Beijing) Ltd. The interest on the said loans advanced was charged LIBOR + 1.5%. The case of the assessee was that the rate of interest which was charged by it from its AE was comparable to the rate of interest