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

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)

2 - Grant of License and Exclusivity ii) ARTICLE 3-No sublicense iii) ARTICLE 9 - Use and Disclosure of Technical Information iv) ARTICLE 13 - Terms of agreement (upto 30.06.2007) v) ARTICLE 21/22 Termination/Effect of Expiry and Termination vi) ARTICLE 25/26 Certain Prohibitions/Maintenance of Secrecy To the same effect are the following clauses placing restrictions on use of knowhow by the assessee

M/S SOCIETY FOR PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN ASIA,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Society For Participatory Research In Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Trust Ward-Iii, Asia, 42,Tughlakabad Instutional Area, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaats1994H (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G of the Act. 4.1 During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the appellant society had declared receipts on account of research and training grants of Rs. 15.91 crores, contributions of Rs. 4.18 crores and other income of Rs. 1.36 crores. The Assessing Officer thus formed an opinion that such receipts are of commercial nature and the appellant

TERADATA INDIA P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

2) of the Act (i.e. Clean Ganga Fund and Swacch Bharath Kosh) and not to be extended to other donations to various trusts and institutions which are otherwise eligible under section 80G of the Act. 6.5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in stating that the amount grouped under

TERADATA INDIA PVT LTD,GRUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

2) of the Act (i.e. Clean Ganga Fund and Swacch Bharath Kosh) and not to be extended to other donations to various trusts and institutions which are otherwise eligible under section 80G of the Act. 6.5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in stating that the amount grouped under

ACIT-CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON vs. TERADATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

2) of the Act (i.e. Clean Ganga Fund and Swacch Bharath Kosh) and not to be extended to other donations to various trusts and institutions which are otherwise eligible under section 80G of the Act. 6.5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in stating that the amount grouped under

SOCIETY FOR PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN ASIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

TDS. Further, it has been also held that since the receipts from educational activities is only Rs. 20.65 lacs out of total receipts of Rs. 21.46 crores declared during the year, therefore activities of the appellant cannot be considered to be education. The learned counsel for the assessee however has assailed the above conclusion by pointing out that consistently that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ODIA SAMAJ, NEW DELHI

In the result Cross objections raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

TDS was deducted under section 194J/C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (‘the Act’) 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the case of the Assessee is not hit by the second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 3. That on facts and circumstances

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PRIVATE LTD,HARYANA vs. CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

2,64,25,750 is attributable to erroneous reporting in the e-TDS return for the year under consideration by Keysight India which resulted in erroneous Form 26AS forming the basis of the said addition. It has further been stated that the Form 26AS has been revised in his case and the assessee has received revised 4 Aligent Technologies (Interantioanal

NATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY FEDERATION OF INDIA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

80G of the Act which has duly been allowed. According to the Revenue, the Annual membership fee is not a voluntary donation but is charged in lieu of services received/receivable from the organization upon 4 entering into the membership by consenting to the terms and conditions of the organization. Further, according to the Revenue activities of the registered public charitable

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

NALWA STEEL POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS provisions, but finally the Assessing Officer made the additions in violation of the DRP’s directions even without challenging the finding by the 23 department. 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO, directions of the DRP and Assessment Order. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record

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

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMTED,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 115BAA which does not cover deduction claimed u/s 80G. Disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) on account of delay in payment of employees contribution of PF & ESI: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground raised against the erroneous action of the learned AO in disallowing