DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

TDS deduction on the reimbursement payment to JVC. 4. Unreconciled difference: A massive difference of Rs. 58,85,443 existed between the assessee's booking of reimbursement (Rs. 49,32,507) and the JVC's recording of receipt of these funds (Rs. 10,39,2583 [sic in original document]). The assessee's explanation (differing finalization dates) was unsatisfactory . Revenue

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

section 200A(I) for the computation of said fees at the time of processing. The tribunal relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi & Others reported in [2016] 289 CTR 602. 8. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘G’ in the case

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

section 200A(I) for the computation of said fees at the time of processing. The tribunal relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi & Others reported in [2016] 289 CTR 602. 8. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘G’ in the case

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

92,672/-. The case was scrutinized and the consequential assessment was completed, vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Act; wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed (i) guarantee fee of Rs.42,58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

92,672/-. The case was scrutinized and the consequential assessment was completed, vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Act; wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed (i) guarantee fee of Rs.42,58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

92,672/-. The case was scrutinized and the consequential assessment was completed, vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Act; wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed (i) guarantee fee of Rs.42,58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

92,672/-. The case was scrutinized and the consequential assessment was completed, vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Act; wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed (i) guarantee fee of Rs.42,58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section

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. 29. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the trade schemes reimbursed to sales promoters is already part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

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. 29. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the trade schemes reimbursed to sales promoters is already part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

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. 29. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the trade schemes reimbursed to sales promoters is already part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

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. 29. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the trade schemes reimbursed to sales promoters is already part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XIII vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

92,221/- thereon was deposited on 7th March, 2007. The balance amount of Rs.78,51,800/- was paid/released in the month of March, 2013:DHC:3039-DB ITA No. 65/2013 Page 3 of 20 2007 and TDS was deducted and was paid on the said amount before the due date in the month of April, 2007. Deduction, therefore

YOGESH GANDHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INTL TAX -1(3)(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Yogesh Gandhi, Vs. Acit, Circle, C – 2/14, Safdarjung Development Area, International Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi – 110 021. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaipg4922F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rishabh Ostwal, Advocate Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi - 42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Is An Nri & Also Having Income From Rent & Interest During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Sold A Property During Fy 2018-19 At Rs.2,97,50,000/- & Declared His Income In Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20. During The Fy 2018-

92,000/- in the AY 2023-24 on the payment of Rs.1.00 Crore. C. The Respondent is wrong in law and on facts of the case ignoring section 5(2), Explanation 2 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and applying section 199. D. The Respondent is wrong in allowing credit of TDS

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In both the years, the Ld. CIT(A) partly

BT INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

92(3) does not permit computation of income on the basis of arm’s length price in such a situation; as a matter of fact, it prohibits application of arm’s length principle in such a situation. The plea of the assessee, as specifically taken up in ground no. 5 (g), is thus indeed well taken and merits our acceptance