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

94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, under section

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

94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, under section

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

94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, under section

INDIGO INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kant[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Indigo Infraprojects Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, Wz-13, D/2, Opposite A-2, Circle-10(1), Gurudwara, Asaltpur, Janakpuri, Delhi. Delhi-110058. Pan-Aacci8551P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tarun Kandhari, Ca & Ms. Renu Suri, Ca Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

TDS of Rs.9,94,719/- as per Section 1999 read with rule 37BA though the related income is properly declared in the Income Tax Return and was also appearing in previous Form 26AS of that earlier Assessment Year.” 4. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2019 declaring total income

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

94,690/- 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee appealed before the first appellate authority, who after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee allowed the appeal of the assessee on the issues raised by the Revenue. The relevant findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2, para 5 and 7 of the impugned order read

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

94,333 can even otherwise be allowed as additional ground by the Hon‟ble Tribunal. Re: TPS credit short allowed 23. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law, in not allowing credit for TDS of Rs. 2,66,630/- out of aggregate amount of TDS credit of Rs.21,02,52,980 claimed in the Return of Income

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

94,143/- on account of non deduction of TDS and Rs. 7,26,890/- on account of short deduction of TDS. 134. The break-up of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer can be understood from the following chart: Sl. Nature of As per AO Remarks No. payment Freight charges Reimbursement of freight Charges of paddy paid

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

94,329 6. Thus, an upward adjustment of Rs. 18,55,23,878/- is worked out in relation to the AMP expense. It is noted that the assessee has received an overall business performance guarantee sum of Rs. 31,76,79,386/-. Your AMP expense as a percentage of total operating expense works out to 42%. Thus, 42% of this

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

94,329 6. Thus, an upward adjustment of Rs. 18,55,23,878/- is worked out in relation to the AMP expense. It is noted that the assessee has received an overall business performance guarantee sum of Rs. 31,76,79,386/-. Your AMP expense as a percentage of total operating expense works out to 42%. Thus, 42% of this

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

94,329 6. Thus, an upward adjustment of Rs. 18,55,23,878/- is worked out in relation to the AMP expense. It is noted that the assessee has received an overall business performance guarantee sum of Rs. 31,76,79,386/-. Your AMP expense as a percentage of total operating expense works out to 42%. Thus, 42% of this

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

94,329 6. Thus, an upward adjustment of Rs. 18,55,23,878/- is worked out in relation to the AMP expense. It is noted that the assessee has received an overall business performance guarantee sum of Rs. 31,76,79,386/-. Your AMP expense as a percentage of total operating expense works out to 42%. Thus, 42% of this

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

CHANDRA SHEKHAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblechandra Shekhar Aggarwal Vs Acit R-159, Circle-61(1) New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi New Delhi Aacpa6665M (Respondent) (Appellant)

7 deduction made in accordance with the relevant provisions of this chapter and paid to the Central Government, shall be given for the amount so deducted on the production of the certificate furnished u/s 203 for the assessment made under this Act for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. But in the amended provisions the words

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

7,37,222. I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 35 17. Deletion of addition on account of reconciliation of rental income as per TDS Certificates and withdrawal of TDS credit:- Rs.9,94,187/-; and Deletion of withdrawal of credit of TDS Rs.712257/-; 18. Deletion of addition on account of reclassification of income from income from house property to income from business and profession

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

7,37,222. I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 35 17. Deletion of addition on account of reconciliation of rental income as per TDS Certificates and withdrawal of TDS credit:- Rs.9,94,187/-; and Deletion of withdrawal of credit of TDS Rs.712257/-; 18. Deletion of addition on account of reclassification of income from income from house property to income from business and profession

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 3 vs. SUMITOMO COPORATION

7. The record shows that the respondent/assessee had made off-shore supplies to an entity named Bhakara Beas Management Board [in short, “Board”]. The Board credited to the account of the respondent/assessee, Rs. 4,74,51,548 [albeit, before deducing tax at source and surcharge] as advance towards off-shore supplies made by it. However, before remitting the said amount

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 3 vs. SUMITOMO COPORATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

7. The record shows that the respondent/assessee had made off-shore supplies to an entity named Bhakara Beas Management Board [in short, “Board”]. The Board credited to the account of the respondent/assessee, Rs. 4,74,51,548 [albeit, before deducing tax at source and surcharge] as advance towards off-shore supplies made by it. However, before remitting the said amount

STERNAL BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 24(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

TDS is required to be deducted. The AO however, disallowed 30% of EDC paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 29,94,000/-. As assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A), the 2 disallowance was sustained for which assessee is in appeal raising following grounds:- “1) That the addition of Rs.29,94