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

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Re: Consequential Grounds 5. That the Ld. AO / CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 6. That

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICARD 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

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Re: Consequential Grounds 5. That the Ld. AO / CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 6. That

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 31, 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

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Re: Consequential Grounds 5. That the Ld. AO / CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 6. That

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

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Re: Consequential Grounds 5. That the Ld. AO / CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 6. That

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 return filed is followed by an order under section 201, wherein there is no specific adverse finding of default in respect of the expenditure under consideration. xviii. It will kindly be appreciated that in case one were to hold that provisions of 40(a)(ia) could be invoked independent of any finding of default in proceedings under section

ASSERTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS under section 1941A while making payment to Logix Builders and Promoters Private Limited.\n\n(ii) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee that the provisions of section 1941A are not applicable and hence no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made

AJNARA INDIA LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), WARD- 49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S. Ajnara India Ltd., Vs. Ito, 502, Plot No. 17, Tds Ward-49(1) Sachdeva Corporate Towers, New Delhi. Comm. Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092 (Appellant) (Respondent)

86,28,674/- to Noida/Greater Noida development authority (GNoida) is not covered under section 194-1 thus is not subjected to TDS

GE INTELLIGENT PLATFORMS ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

86,344/- as against ‘NIL’ income returned by the Appellant. 2. That the AO and DRP erred on facts and in law in assessing the revenues of the Appellant from offshore supply of standardized/shrink wrapped software as income in the nature of royalty and taxing the same under the provisions of Section 9( 1 )(vi) of the Income

GE INTELLIGENT PLATFORMS ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

86,344/- as against ‘NIL’ income returned by the Appellant. 2. That the AO and DRP erred on facts and in law in assessing the revenues of the Appellant from offshore supply of standardized/shrink wrapped software as income in the nature of royalty and taxing the same under the provisions of Section 9( 1 )(vi) of the Income

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

TDS on computer maintenance expenses is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the payment has been made for using one common global portal shared by all global companies professionally and, thus, does not make available any technology. Thus, in effect, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO and held

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

86,12,440/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.06.2018 in Appeal No.25/17-18/CIT(A)-4 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds in ITA No.5812/Del/2018: 1. “Whether on the facts

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

86,12,440/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.06.2018 in Appeal No.25/17-18/CIT(A)-4 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds in ITA No.5812/Del/2018: 1. “Whether on the facts

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

86,12,440/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.06.2018 in Appeal No.25/17-18/CIT(A)-4 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds in ITA No.5812/Del/2018: 1. “Whether on the facts

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

86,12,440/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.06.2018 in Appeal No.25/17-18/CIT(A)-4 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds in ITA No.5812/Del/2018: 1. “Whether on the facts

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

86,16,713/- and failure to deduct TDS attracted interest liability of Rs. 82,28,960/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Depreciation

M/S SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA P. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

86,16,713/- and failure to deduct TDS attracted interest liability of Rs. 82,28,960/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Depreciation

CIT vs. DLF COMMERCIAL PROJECT CORPORATION

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS on the payments made on reimbursement of service charges?” 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee, a firm set up in 1984-85, is in the business of developing land for commercial, residential, retail, industrial parks, information technology parks, SEZ, etc. During AY 2007-08, the assessee filed its return reporting an income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 4595/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, M/S. Alnoor Exports, बनाम C/O. M/S. Rohit Malik & Vs. Associates, Circle : 32 (1) 1403, Chiranjeev Tower, New Delhi. 43 - Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aacfa2599N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Respondent

TDS on export promotion expenses of Rs.14,90,547/- the Assessing Officer disallowed the same. On appeal the ld. CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance to the extent of Rs.13,94,547/- out of Rs.14,90,547/-. 10. The ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the order